This Blog Post Contains Material Some Audiences May Find Objectionable

Okay, so I've been debating writing this post for several weeks now. In fact, I've drafted it, then deleted it, and then drafted it again.

Then someone went and picked on Charlie Brown, and that's a line in the sand you just don't cross.

So here we go.

I like to think I've made my opinion on censorship clear. I'm all for people exercising their own discretion in selecting what entertainment they choose to indulge in - heaven knows I do. But I take issue with people who call for societal censorship towards material that they find offensive - especially when they prove unable to understand what the material they are protesting actually stands for.

A friend of mine posted a link to a Mormon housewife blog decrying violence in the media. Now, this article really ticked me off; however (and this is the reason I've put off writing this post for so long), I ultimately decided that, even though the article is full of argumentative fallacies (see especially the debate the author had with her college friend in the middle), the bulk of my hard feelings were coming from the comments section - and even the most naive internet dweller learns pretty quickly to stay away from the comments section of any post if they want to continue having a good day.

In the Women in the Scriptures post, commenter after commenter condemns the violence in The Hunger Games - and, yeah, I feel pretty strongly about that story. Again, if someone doesn't want to watch the violence of The Hunger Games, I get that. I even understand someone finding a story full of so much violence to be morally offensive. But to condemn the story for glorifying violence - as so many people do - profoundly misinterprets the theme.

Yeah, the violence is jarring and disturbing. It's supposed to be. The Hunger Games is a criticism of the despicable behaviors audiences endorse in their entertainment choices and is meant to shock people out of their complacency. Just because the story depicts violent acts, doesn't mean that encourages them.

That brings me back to the Charlie Brown article above. The author calls "It’s The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" outdated and irrelevant because of the lax attitude the story takes towards bullying. I think I could see the author's point... if I believed for one second that there's some little girl out there who really wants to be Lucy Van Pelt.

Yes, the Charlie Brown stories depict a lot of bullying and a lot of name-calling... BUT (and, in case you missed it, that's a big "BUT") the audience is invited to sympathize, not with the bullies, but with Charlie Brown. As a result, the audience doesn't walk away from a Charlie Brown story thinking that bullying is "cool" or whatever. They are invited to think about how a bullied person feels.

"That's a pretty sophisticated line of thinking," I hear you say. "Are you sure kids are going to pick up on that?" Well, maybe not, but I know I did. As a kid - eight years old - I loved Peanuts. Still do. I remember very distinctly, at eight years old, reading Peanuts and feeling outraged at the way Lucy treated Charlie Brown. To this day, she remains one of the five fictional characters I wish were real so I could punch them in the face.*

That... um... that little confession may counteract my entire argument.

I said it before, but I'm really devoted to making my point clear, so I'll say it again:

A depiction of violence is not an endorsement of violence.

The same goes for all the other "vices" that pop up in media. Characters using foul language may be using that language to underscore a point different that "profanity is cool." Sexuality is often portrayed in decidedly unsexy ways. You're more than welcome to skip out on that stuff, but it does no good to call for a society-wide ban on such material. Most audiences are intelligent enough to suss out the difference between what a story depicts and what it actually promotes.

And, seriously, if you're not smart enough to understand frickin' Charlie Brown, you probably don't have the right to an opinion anymore.

* - If you're curious, the other four are all Katy Perry.