The problem is really simple. You either close down a house of prostitution or you leave it open. You can’t satisfy both those who want it open and those who want it closed. – Fredric Wertham
Banned Books Week is usually the last week of September, but for some reason I’ve been unable to ascertain it is being held in the first week of October this year; it thus started yesterday and ends this coming Saturday. And though, as I said in last year’s column on the subject, “I’m usually pretty skeptical of ‘Official Whatchamacallit Week’ type things…I find the idea of a week specifically dedicated to reading books which busybodies want to stop people from reading to be irresistibly subversive.” Last year I specifically discussed book-banning and listed the most-challenged books of 2010; four of them (The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Brave New World, The Hunger Games series and What My Mother Doesn’t Know) were back on 2011’s list, where they were joined by the Internet Girls series by Lauren Myracle, The Story of Life on the Golden Fields series by Kim Dong Hwa, My Mom’s Having a Baby by Dori Hillestad Butler, the Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, the Gossip Girl series by Cecily Von Ziegesar and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. But this year, I’d rather talk briefly about the defective mind of the would-be censor, and how we as a culture have made it easier for him to get his way.
First of all, let’s make one thing clear: the urge to censor is a mental illness. No normal person wants to control what other people think, and no sane person could believe that he can control what anyone else thinks. Only a psychotic believes that he can be directly affected by the thoughts inside another person’s brain, yet time and again would-be censors attempt to circumvent the principles of liberty and individual rights by claiming exactly that; somehow, we are asked to believe, what individuals see and think can magically affect others and is therefore subject to the same sort of restrictions as violent actions are.
In earlier times, it was enough to say that books, pictures or thoughts were “sinful”, because people imagined “evil” as some sort of tangible thing that could affect everyone around it (presumably via invisible “evil rays”). And though that sort of booga-booga nonsense would be laughed out of the conversation now if expressed directly, it still sells quite well as long as it’s expressed indirectly by referring to unproven “negative secondary effects” or burbling inane and incomprehensible neofeminist drivel about how all women are as mystically interconnected as a hydra’s heads. And of course, just about anything (no matter how repressive and totalitarian) can be sold to the Great Unwashed if it’s depicted as being intended to “protect” children, with “protect” in this case being interpreted to mean “lock into a permanent passive and vegetative state”. Young people, we are told, can somehow be “harmed” by encountering ideas and concepts that they are “not ready for”, like the protagonist of an H.P. Lovecraft story driven mad by the blasphemous cosmic truths he discovers in some forbidden eldritch tome. Foremost among these “dangerous” truths are supposed to be facts about the functions of their own bodies, but considering that many of our laws declare that they don’t actually own those bodies until they’re 18, I suppose it all makes a kind of twisted sense once one accepts the outlandish initial premise.
Of course, demands to censor some content don’t even need these sorts of perverse mental gymnastics; those who wish to ban criticism of any given group need only point to the actions of some violent psycho who attacked a member of that group, then pretend that he was “incited” to the violence by the criticism; minority groups are the biggest perpetrators of this odious censorship tactic, but more recently politicians and religious fanatics have adopted it as well and fearful Europeans and Americans are listening. The problem with these people is that they fail to comprehend the principle of legal precedent; once one exception to free speech is made (whether for “obscenity”, “violent rhetoric”, “hate speech”, flag burning, Holocaust denial or whatever), it’s that much easier to make another exception, and another, and another…
The important thing to remember when listening to any demand for censorship is that no matter what excuse the censor presents to attain his goal, he is ultimately lying. It’s not really about “public safety”, or the “children”, or “community standards”, or whatever else he may claim; it’s about the fact that his leaky mind is unable to keep unwelcome thoughts out, so he demands that society do it for him. Fredric Wertham was a child psychiatrist who wrote Seduction of the Innocent, an attack on comic books in which he made the sort of claims which have since become de rigueur for anyone trying to censor music, movies, television, video games, the internet, etc: namely, that the “bad” item harms children and/or adolescents by giving them “bad thoughts” they wouldn’t otherwise have in their “innocent” Rousseauian state. Wertham’s book triggered the Kefauver Hearings which eventually resulted in over 15 years of stifling self-censorship under the repressive Comics Code, but this did not satisfy him; nothing less than a total ban on all comic books would have. My epigram is from “It’s Still Murder: What Parents Still Don’t Know About Comics Books”, a rant published in the April 9th, 1955 Saturday Review of Books (and quoted in an excellent article on the subject recently published on the website of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund); I chose it because it reveals not only Wertham’s real thought processes, but those of any prohibitionist. Set aside for a minute the absurdity of comparing comics to a brothel and recognize what he’s saying here: to the prohibitionist, it doesn’t matter if a brothel has no negative effects on its neighborhood; it doesn’t matter how it’s run or whether its employees and customers are happy; and it doesn’t even matter if he never goes there, doesn’t know anyone else who goes there and never even sees it. Just the very fact that it exists upsets him, and nothing short of its closure will satisfy him. This is why it’s impossible to negotiate with censors or to cede even the most insignificant-seeming patch of ground to them: they will view any compromise not as an end result, but as the first step toward their eventual goal of a total ban on whatever it is they don’t want to think about.
Brava, Maggie, I love the way your mind works.
I noticed you referred to “hate speech” laws. Some things that are called “hate speech” are really incitement laws (which I don’t much like, but “X told Y to hurt Z, Y hurt Z, Y committed a violent crime, X got away scot free because there’s no incitement law” doesn’t feel right either) that have been misnamed. Others are hate-crimes laws where people are blurring a perfectly real line. Most, the ones that really are hate-speech laws, are just censorship and wrong.
Hate-crimes laws aren’t censorship laws, though – they say that someone who committed a crime of violence against one person, who did so in order to intimidate other persons who are members of a group (e.g. someone beat up a member of a gang in order to keep the rest of the gang out of their territory – or someone beat up a black person to keep black people out of their suburb) has committed a more serious offense. That should be, properly, an aggravating factor.
Their speech isn’t being banned: it’s being used as evidence of their intent to intimidate others.
There seem to be two groups of people trying to blur what is a perfectly clear line. One group is a group of censors who want to have hate-speech laws and use hate-crimes arguments to justify them. The other is a group of hateful people (mostly racists, some sexists) who want to be able to violently intimidate people and use anti-censorship arguments to justify themselves.
I don’t believe in “hate crime” laws, either. If somebody murders me because he’s a serial killer, or because he wants to silence me after a rape, or because I’m white, or because I’m a whore, I’m still just as dead no matter what. As soon as you give penalties for crimes against black people, Jews, homosexuals or whatever, you’re implying their lives are more valuable than others’. “Hate crime” laws also set a dangerous precedent that certain thoughts are illegal (which shores up the justification for prostitution law, among other things), put even more power into the hands of prosecutors, and give the state yet another weapon to increase the size of the prison population by increasing sentences to lengths unwarranted by actual acts. NONE of these are positive contributions to either jurisprudence or society.
If a person commits a crime, it is proper to consider evidence that he will commit further crimes when deciding what to do with him. So, if a person kills for convenience or out of hatred, one might reasonably infer that he should be prevented from having the opportunity to do so again. Thus, while there should be no such things as hate crimes, there should be differential punishment based on the reasons or emotions that led to the criminal act.
I agree, but these are factors for the judge and jury to consider. When motive is codified into law, that power is taken from the judge and handed to the prosecutor, with the results you can see in modern American society.
The problem is far deeper than hate crime laws. The way that the federal criminal justice system is set up, prosecutors have far too much control over grand juries, charging, and sentencing. I gather that it’s the same in most states. Worse, the overwhelming majority of cases result in a guilty plea, which has the effect of cutting out both judge and jury from limiting prosecutorial excess. I’m of the opinion that eliminating guilty pleas would be the best thing that could happen to the criminal justice system–because it would make it necessary to focus on real crimes instead of “prosecute ’em, God will know his own.”
Now that’s an interesting idea. Lots of prosecutors jack up their conviction rates by convincing defendants in cases the prosecutor could never win to plead guilty. The (likely innocent, else-wise why couldn’t the prosecutor prove it in court?) defendant gets off with a lighter sentence than if he’d lost in front of a jury, doesn’t have to spend all that time defending himself, and the prosecutor has another conviction to point to when he wants to run for higher office. A win/win! Except of course it’s only a win/not-as-big-a-loss-as-it-could-be.
Changing the law to “don’t charge somebody unless you believe you can win in front of a jury” would go a long way towards stopping this.
The prosecutor’s code of ethics says that a prosecutor may not charge someone unless he believes he can win in front of a jury. However, as I learned to my cost, this is routinely ignored; there is no real penalty for ignoring this requirement.
In my case, the prosecutor was relying on the word of a person who routinely lied, to her family, her friends, and the police, who had a history of making false claims of abuse, and who couldn’t tell the same story twice in a row. Not exactly “reasonable doubt” material. But good enough to get an indictment and, for a defendant who doesn’t have the money to hire a real lawyer, that’s essentially the same as getting a conviction.
Hate crime laws are a fabrication of modern political liberals who think a number of group of people need to continue to be treated as victims. Being a victim is very powerful in Western society, but it’s been overused so badly that I have become burned out. These days when someone claims to be a victim because of being part of one of these classes, my instinct now is to make sure I do much less to help them than I normally would.
That’s a common viewpoint among libertarians, but I beg to differ. The real purpose of “hate crime” laws, in my opinion, is to punish terrorist crimes — crimes such as murders by the KKK, which were intended to scare a large group of indirect targets into obeying the terrorist’s instructions (in this example, staying out of certain towns after nightfall).
If that type of murder were punished only as ordinary murder, it’s almost as bad as letting them off scot free (as too often happened because juries shared the bad guys’ view): it means the terrorists will succeed in bullying the target group.
I’ll grant you that it would be better if “crimes for the purpose of making an example of the victim,” rather than “crimes motivated by hate,” were what carried the enhanced sentence — but that is impractical, since it requires the jury to draw inferences about an accused person’s intentions that judges are not yet willing to let juries draw. So until it happens, I’d rather have “hate crime” laws on the books than not have them.
There was already a crime for that: extortion (getting a person to obey instructions via threat). And if it’s a group, conspiracy as well. We didn’t need another law for those whom the prosecution can’t actually prove guilty of those crimes.
Federal law specifically criminalizes terrorism, and has very long sentences.
Also, judges routinely allow–require, actually–juries to make inferences about intent. Though, as Maggie has pointed out, prosecutors often try to short-circuit this by arguing that an act proves an intent for the act.
How exactly does one enforce hate crime laws without criminalizing thought? Why is a crime committed out of hate any worse than one that is not? Perhaps they generate some kind of infectious ray.
Intent is a major element of a whole variety of crimes, from the distinctions between vandalism, breaking and entering, and burglary to the multiple degrees of murder. Take away courts’ ability to consider the difference and you force all the crimes in each of those groups to be lumped together and treated the same.
In my view, it would be quite appropriate to do away with the various gradations of crimes and leave the question of intent for the determination of proper punishment.
That would mean no more standardized sentences.
Attacking a member of a minority group is the same as attacking a member of a majority group, the attack is wrong. Your thoughts behind it are your own.
I often hear people complain that they are offended by this, or that. Live in the world long enough, and you’re bound to find something to offend you.
An important thing is to realize that not everything in the world is for you, or is directed to you. Sure, there are things that offend me. Those things just aren’t for me. I pass them by. Let someone else enjoy them, I don’t need to ban them.
Part of the problem is the constant desire of the law-and-order mindset to criminalize proxies for the thing they really want to persecute but can’t easily prove. Such attempts at criminalization generally get passed with much nonsense about how they won’t be abused, but of course they will be.
I understand that your point here is that people should mind their own business and respect the right for people to read/say/do whatever they want, but I would like to point out that censorship is much, much worse than busybodies attempting impossible to achieve thought control.
Thought control is possible, especially through censorship, because it enforces the kind of ignorance that a cult (any religion, really) can use to control its members. If censorship is enforced from childhood into adulthood, you get ignorance spawned fear and denial of anything that is not ‘approved dogma’.
Unrestricted access to information is essential for a free culture not just because people have the right to read (et all) what they want, but because the vast majority of people will not be capable of freedom unless they are intellectually exposed to it and learn to expect it.
Pro censorship people know what they want censored because it is material that a) they had censored from them because of its active ‘corruption factor’ or b) because the information challenges their world view, and there for it must be ‘devil lies’ because there is no truth but the truth given to them by their ‘authority’.
What I’m trying to say is ignorance breeds more ignorance, and all the horrible things that result from ignorance. Censorship is an intellectual decease, a cancer, not because it is pointless or ineffective (fantasy based insanity), but because it is an effective way to corrupt and control the thoughts of impressionable people (so, the evil overlord version of insanity).
In other words, censorship does exactly what censors claim the “unacceptable” expression does: it corrupts people.
I agree.
Om my, was that was a delight to read. You even got a Cthulu reference in. And it’s a perfect metaphor for the supposed corrupting effects of evil books, websites and speech.
When I was a kid, it was Dungeons and Dragons that was supposedly out to get us. A few kids had committed suicide because their characters had been killed and the real-life monsters took advantage of their parents’ monumental grief and persuaded them that they wouldn’t have killed themselves without D&D. It was ridiculous. We heard the same things: they taught us witchcraft, paganism, satanism. If only.
When it comes to vile speech and writing, I think Salman Rushdie put it best, when discussing the recent film bruhaha (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/opinion/keller-the-satanic-video.html?smid=tw-share):
Thank you! I always feel gleeful when I can work in a reference to some geeky thing without breaking stride. 🙂
A truly odd fact about the late Dr. Wertham; although he remained absolutely convinced, to the end of his life, that comic books (and other media) could destructively influence young minds (despite ample evidence that this just was not true), he was also opposed to…gun control!
Don’t you think calling censorship a “mental illness” is a bit hyperbolic? I think we should stick with science here – and I don’t see that all censorship is a mental illness – nor I do think it’s listed in any medical handbook as such. Not all cases of censorship are attempts to control people’s thinking anyway – so you can’t use that to really justify it as a mental illness. Censorship of Porn is not about thought control – it’s about removing material from the public domain that busybodies don’t like. It’s censorship of a product and, in some areas of the world – it was pretty damned effective until the information revolution came along.
There’s bigger issues at play here – censorship is just one more tool in the toolbox of oppressors to “oppress” people and, it would seem that oppression is a big chunk of the human psyche. No – no one can “control” someone else’s faults – and I don’t really think the prohibitionists are stupid enough to believe they can. You’re selling them short when you insinuate that. Their real motivations are much more sinister – they want to control BEHAVIOR – not thoughts. Think about what you will – the thoughts in one man’s mind don’t matter to them. What they’re doing, they’re doing to exercise a perverted sense of CONTROL over the behaviors and conduct of others.
In this context – they can be very damned effective and history shows this. I would call this “EVIL” incarnate – but a
“mental illness”? I don’t think so.
No, I don’t think it’s at all hyperbolic. Belief in the state’s magical power to control thought is clearly psychotic, and believing that one has the right and duty to make moral decisions for others is megalomania. These things are mental illnesses whether we say so or not, so we might as well say so.
Fair enough – you’ve just pronounced more than half the living and dead population of the Earth as “mentally ill” (and I think I’m understating the magnitude).
Megalomania? Sure, I suppose that – framed the way you’ve put it – that it could be megalomania. However, megalomania is not listed as mental illness or disease in the ICD or DSM.
In fact, megalomania is so broadly defined with so many different kinds of symptoms that I’m … happily … a self-diagnosed megalomaniac. No – I don’t wish to make decisions for others and I’m fine with everyone doing their own thing – in fact, I wish it so!
However, when it comes to ego – I have that in spades. I also have an almost supernatural belief in my ability to accomplish physically difficult things better than anyone else. Add to that a dash of believing that I’m possibly immune to harm.
Most of the great men of history were megalomaniacs. A lot of the great whore’s you’ve written about were too. Caesar didn’t conquer Gaul for Rome – he did it for his own advancement and place in history. George Patton was the very definition of a megalomaniac … as was George Custer.
I just don’t see where labeling these guys as “mentally ill” advances the argument you’re trying to make.
Though – I certainly agree with you everywhere else on this topic. 🙂
Well you don’t start by treating them nicely that they have broken logic. There comes a point in Human history (and I would like to think we are beyond it) that even attempting to argue pro censorship is just stupid. There is no reason to consider censorship unless it is a “knee jerk” reaction.
Censorship has never saved anybody, and our own country rose from the ashes of an old censorship regime. History does not argue weather censorship was useful or not. The facts, and the rhetoric comes out against it time and again. Only authoritarians (governments) see a useful tool in censorship, and I can’t see treating such ideas with any amount of “respect” acceptable.
We were told to oppose such ideas in governments always, and giving them any credence by not labeling these people who come up with these thoughts time and again would be foolish.
Then “label” them something accurate. A belief in positive power in censorship is wrong headed and foolish – but it’s not conclusive scientific proof of mental illness.
We pollute our own logical arguments when we toss around gratuitous insults at our opponents without any justification do so. You combat WRONGNESS with RIGHTNESS – not more wrongness.
“the urge to censor is a mental illness.”
Well, I don’t think you are using specific medical terminology here; to be psychotic is to have a fixed false belief, unshakeable by reason and out of keeping with the person’s background. This was explored in HG Wells” The Country of the Blind where the one-eyed man wasn’t king — his ideas were out of kilter with his captors.
But as far as ideas are concerned, I’m with you; there ought not to be any censorship of ideas, of thought; Aristotle recognised this, and therefore drank the hemlock. I think that you could argue that any censorship of ideas always reflects the insecurity of the censor. So, in a way, I’m not surprised to see that To Kill a Mockingbird and The Catcher in the Rye have been “censored”. (Sadly, when I did Eng Lit, we didn’t study anything that was less than a century old — but I’ve read both books — and I wish I’d studied them academically.)
And yet: I was brought up (in my training) to realise that “always” and “never” were terms that didn’t apply. I’m prepared to accept that there are things that we ought not to know, to be informed of. I don’t want to know what the nuclear codes are that enable POTUS to nuke Russia, and I don’t think these should be public knowledge. But this is surely “state security” rather than “censorship”.
But, I recognise that, for example, the concept, the idea, of contraception was for decades censored in Ireland: people could not debate an idea of which they had never heard, of which they had no knowledge. Surely this is (and was) totally wrong; and yet the censor could not for ever hold back the tsunami of information of which he (always a he) was so afraid. In the long run, censorship of ideas always fails. Magna est veritas et preaevalebit.
Just a quibble, but I think it was Socrates who drank the hemlock. I believe that Aristotle died in exile.
“Mum! Dad! It’s Evil! Don’t touch it!”
And then they do, and explode.
Man I love that movie.
Me, too! One of these days I’m going to do a column sharing my second tier of favorite movies, and that’s definitely in it.
I don’t watch as many fillums/movies as I ought: but you two have totally lost me. What are you talking about?
The picture in the middle of the blog entry is from the end of Time Bandits. I love that movie.
As Jack stated, it’s from Time Bandits:
A lot people like Time Bandits. And those people have, and should have, and must never not have every freedom to watch it as much as they like.
And they’re welcome to it. Please invite me over for movie night when we’ll be watching something else.
What is becoming clear is that for it to work, censorship has to be total. The Arab regimes are having many problems now because they can’t control the alternative media, whereas in North Korea both internet access and short-wave radio are illegal, and hence the regime there finds it easier to control dissent.
Right – in the long run it fails. Then again, expand the timeline and EVERYTHING fails in the long run except for the well understood scientific natural laws.
But censorship was very effective for Mao … in his time … and also for many others. I do not think that Lincoln could have won the Civil War had he not censored the Northern Press.
Censorship – IS effective if it’s employed correctly by an intelligent and devious bastard who knows it’s strengths and limitations.
In war, the first casulty is truth (Aeschylus).
Short term win, long term..fail.
That’s not unique to either America or the Civil War. Up to 1950 every country on earth censored its media during wartime. Democratic countries especially have to: if a war’s casualties are even talked about, much less seen, by the masses every day on the evening news, the masses will demand immediate peace, even at the cost of surrender, and the government will be faced with the choice of granting the demand or becoming a dictatorship.
This is why we lost in Viet Nam. It is also why we will probably lose the next World War.
“if a war’s casualties are even talked about, much less seen, by the masses every day on the evening news, the masses will demand immediate peace,”
Good. Peace should be the default state.
You’ll note that I left out “even at the cost of surrender.” History doesn’t show it. We seem to have been willing to accept a whole lot of casualties, body bags, local streets named after the fallen hero, in WWII. Vietnam seems to have ended not so much because of the 58,000 dead servicemen, but because nobody could convince us that they were dying to any worthwhile purpose. We seemed determined not to win that war, and yet equally determined to stay in it.
We can accept a lot of death and destruction when we think we’re fighting for something worthwhile.
If the ‘short term’ is long enough (such as, say the life of the person imposing the orders) then the eventual failure is no deterrent to authority.
Hi Maggie,
I only recently found your blog, via your guest posts at The Agitator. I have read through a lot of your posts; I particularly appreciate the joke about the Catholic daughter returning home – a laugh out loud post is always welcome.
“No normal person wants to control what other people think, and no sane person could believe that he can control what anyone else thinks.”
I don’t think this is correct. The norm, throughout history, has been for the ruling elite to restrict the ideas people have, the things they can conceive of, by means of socialization, education, ritual and censorship. As some Jesuit allegedly said, “Give me the first six years of a child’s life and you can have the rest.”
And most people go along, most of the time. They find it much easier to ostracize, banish or kill those few that think differently than to question the things they have been taught to believe and think.
Some years ago someone did a study presenting the Bill of Rights to American citizens out of context. A large number of people found them entirely too radical, perhaps communistic, to endorse.
One of the worst inventions of the twentieth century was modern techniques of propaganda, usually euphemistically called ‘public relations’. It’s entire raison d’être is to control what people think.
We live in a unique period of history; no society has ever allowed its citizens as much liberty of thought and expression as we do. I don’t believe it’s going to last. With the rise of ubiquitous computing and surveillance, I believe we are much more likely to arrive at something like Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ than Roddenberry’s vision. I hope I’m wrong.
I think you’ll be wrong in the long run, but I sincerely doubt we’ll get anything like that in the next 250 years as he envisioned.
Since you liked that joke, you’ll be pleased to know there’s a sequel to that column coming on the 11th. 🙂
I look forward to it!
You’ve gathered a nice little community here; one of the saner corners of the web. I’ve added your blog to my RSS reader and will drop by as time permits.
“First of all, let’s make one thing clear: the urge to censor is a mental illness.”
Maggie, you should get a load of this headcase:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/09/pornographys-effect-on-the-brain-part-1/
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/09/pornographys-effect-on-the-brain-part-2/
I’m really beginning to tire of these harpes.
She needs to read this study.
this is an amazing article
Shortly after Robert Bork was denied his seat on SCOTUS I heard something approximating the following about his philosophy. I have not been able to track down the original quote, but it went something like this.
“There’s no such thing as a victimless crime. Knowledge that an immoral act is taking place victimizes those who find it offensive.”
I’d love it if someone could point me to the source of that or even could correct the phrasing because it speaks volumes about the mindset he represents. I didn’t necessarily like the method that was used to exclude Bork, but given his penchant for endorsing over-reaching gov’t I’m glad he was excluded. I guess expecting politicians to make a limited gov’t argument is just expecting too much, though.
The quote was, “No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.” Which makes him as dangerous a lunatic as Dr. Wertham.
Thanks, Maggie.
Do you happen to know where it came from or did you, like me, retain it all those years, albeit more completely?
I did remember the gist of it, but Googled the exact wording. The source says it came from a 1971 article in the Indiana Law Journal.
Far worse than Wertham; it makes him morally indistinguishable from those people who reacted with violence to that anti-Muslim movie.
No. Much more dangerous.
He had a veneer of reason and consideration, and a patina of concern. In truth, he was advocating a philosophu in which any tyrrany could be entirely justified.
Which is a surprisingly ridiculous philosophy for a legally-trained person to support. As an example, Abolitionists were aware that slavery existed and people were being enslaved. A suit claiming that the abolitionists were being ‘harmed’ by this activity would have been laughed out of court. From Bork’s perspective, he must have been aware of the various militias around the country who rejected his authority as a judge. Again, had Bork tried to proceed against those militias on the grounds that their rejection of legal authority damaged him in some way, his plea would have been summarily rejected.
Just realized where you got the photo. Great movie. Grossly underrated. Don’t touch the pure evil.
[…] body and soul, and has the right to torture or maim those individuals as it pleases. In “Thought Control” I […]