Film censorship

I find it interesting, and quite disturbing that supposedly intelligent human beings enjoy being treated like minors who cannot think for themselves but need a censor to distinguish for them good from bad. What makes censors better judges than us?

As opinions can never be objective, why not let everyone be their own judge instead? Interestingly enough, Mr. North (The Jakarta Post, July 13, 1994) claimed that one has only two options to choose from: censorship or anarchy. Let me tell you, not one country in the western hemisphere has official censorship and not one is in a state of "idealistic anarchy" if it ever existed.

In this column, freedom of expression is often associated with pornography. I agree that pornography should not be available to everyone. That is why a rating system is in place which is designated to keep minors from watching inappropriate materials. However, I am a strong supporter of the notion that all adults should have free access to whatever they wish to see as they are the ones who are in the best position to judge for themselves what is best for them. In his letter, Mr. North also naively believes that a censor keeps pornography out of the country by banning it.

As the high-yielding and reoccurring police raids on pornographic material distributors show, keeping pornography out of the country seems to be an impossible task. Why not then legalizing what many want while getting rid of a superfluous institution?

PATRICK WACKER

New York, USA