A speech I wrote for a debate in KMC Manipal:

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN ART AND LITERATURE

Art and literature are two of the most subjective forms of human expression which in turn is the primary ideal on which democracy today rests. In an environment where the human mind is so conditioned as to blindly follow a predefined path, any suggestion to the contrary evokes frenetic feelings that may simmer over into violence. As a society we want our young people to evolve into literate, thoughtful, and caring human beings;. We feel the need to shield them from disturbing or distorting ideas. Of course, what is agitating to one person or segment of society may be exciting and innovative to others. This combination of multiplicity of values and concern for young people is what forms the cornerstone of the argument for censorship.

My worthy opponents would, of course argue that the subjectivity of what can be considered "objectionable material" limits the worthiness of any person or group to exert complete control over what reaches the public. My contention is that if our very own elected representatives cannot decide what is best for us, who can? We get the leaders we deserve, and we get the leaders we choose. Restrictions are deemed necessary in a democratic society provided they answer a pressing social need and are proportional to the legitimate aim of the restriction.
Freedom of expression is not a simple and absolute concept but a liberty that is betrayed by even deeper values which, although implicit in the various justifications for free thought may not apply equally strongly to all circumstances.

Civil libertarians long wanted a world in which Eugene O'Neill's "Desire under the Elms" could be produced, or James Joyce's "Ulysses" published or Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" be read without interference. What they hadn't bargained for was a world in which homosexual rape is simulated on the stage, in which the public flocks to witness professional fornication. Might not our disquiet be merely a cultural hangover? Was anyone ever corrupted by a book? John Hinckley stalked and attempted to assasinate President Reagan after seeing the renowned film "Taxi Driver" and falling in love with Jodie Foster. Blaming books or films for the acts of disturbed individuals is a simplistic approach that could probably hit the root of the problem. A huge furore erupted when Mark Twain's book Huckleberry Finn was banned for being too racist. This public outcry was mitigated by twain himself who said "I wrote 'Tom Sawyer' and 'Huck Finn' for adults exclusively, and it always distressed me when I find that boys and girls have been allowed access to them." After all, if you believe that no one was ever corrupted by a book, you have also to believe that no one was ever improved by a book. We have no problem contrasting repressive laws governing alcohol, drugs and tobacco with laws regulating alcohol, drugs and tobacco. We have not made smoking a criminal offense. We have, however, and with good liberal conscience, prohibited cigarette advertising on television. The idea of restricting individual freedom, in a liberal way, is not at all unfamiliar to us.

I would like to conclude by saying simply that society need not be tolerant of the intolerance of others.As Mark Twain once said: " The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean."