THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, December 30, 1995 TAG: 9512290037
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A9 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: Anthony Lewis
DATELINE: BOSTON LENGTH: Medium: 84 lines
We think of the United States as a country devoted to freedom of speech, and to an impressive extent it is. But even here the urge to censor lurks in people who should know better. So we have been reminded, depressingly, in the month running up to Christmas.
First there was the decision by the Library of Congress to postpone - or, it may turn out, to cancel - an exhibition titled ``Sigmund Freud: Conflict and Culture.'' The decision followed protests by people who disapprove of Freud and his ideas.
Among the critics of the planned show was Gloria Steinem, the writer and feminist. Some of her stated reasons for trying to block the exhibition are a valuable reminder that intellectuals, too, can be censorious fools.
``He himself was likely abused,'' Ms. Steinem said of Freud. That assertion would be disputed by many - I suppose most - biographers and historians in the field. But even if it is true, could it conceivably be a reason to cancel the exhibition?
``He himself suppressed criticism of his work,'' Ms. Steinem added. And two wrongs make a right.
Ms. Steinem and others object to what they consider Freud's condescending view of women. Time has changed scientific views on that and other aspects of Freud's analysis of human nature. But can anyone doubt that his ideas have had an enormous impact on Western culture?
Underlying the attempt to block the Freud exhibition was a particularly dangerous notion: that an institution owned by the government should avoid doing anything controversial. Any serious exploration of the world of ideas has to be provocative. Those who disagree can speak out, which is what free speech means. For them to blot out ideas they dislike reduces state intellectual institutions to the level of pap.
The retreat on the Freud show put the Library of Congress on a slide downhill. A few weeks later it scheduled an exhibit about slave life on Southern plantations, based on accounts by slaves and photographs from the library's collection. On opening day of the exhibit it was pulled down because black library staff members objected.
That cancellation drew sharp criticism from a black member of the Massachusetts Legislature, Rep. Byron Rushing. The library, he said, ``has bought into the climate of fear that exists in Washington cultural institutions.''
That the Library of Congress, with its great history going back to Thomas Jefferson, should bow to this and that sensitivity is alarming evidence of the reach of political correctness in Washington. But a far wider concern about our commitment to free speech is raised by a provision of the telecommunications bill in Congress.
The bill makes it a crime for anyone to put ``indecent'' words or ideas on the Internet where they might reach a minor. The anyone includes on-line services that simply provide an electronic medium.
The very essence of the on-line world is freedom. The services operate as common carriers, like a telephone company, with no role in deciding what is communicated. But now, because anything might reach a child, they are presumably expected to watch every one of the millions of words that flash electronically over their networks lest they be prosecuted for letting an ``indecent'' one go by.
``Indecent'' is a broad word that includes many things now seen by millions on television. The right way to protect children would be to give parents the electronic means to exclude unwanted material. But that did not satisfy the real force behind this sweeping new national censorship: the Christian Coalition, which was regularly consulted by Congressional drafters.
The effect of the provision - no doubt the intended effect - will therefore be to reduce all users of cyberspace to the level of children. That is exactly what Justice Felix Frankfurter found unconstitutional, writing for the Supreme Court in 1957, about a Michigan law that banned sales to anyone of material unsuitable for children. ``Surely,'' he wrote, ``this is to burn the house to roast the pig.''
When the idea of censoring the Internet first arose, Speaker Newt Gingrich objected to it as a violation of the freedom that he has said he so values in cyberspace. But when the issue was drawn, he was silent. So we are all to have our electronic speech limited to what Pat Robertson approves. MEMO: Mr. Lewis is a columnist for The New York Times, 122 E. 42nd St., New
York, N.Y. 10168.
by CNB