"Censorship: Local and Express" by Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum - Lesson 14 of 19
Course playlist: • Ayn Rand at the Ford H...
In June 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided five “obscenity” cases, ruling that government may ban books and movies when “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would find that the work, “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” In this recorded lecture from Boston’s Ford Hall Forum, Ayn Rand analyzes the arguments advanced by both the majority and dissenting justices, condemns the decisions as establishing the intellectual base for censorship in America, and draws out the underlying philosophical premises that unite the seemingly divided Court.
In the ensuing Q&A, Rand addresses a variety of topics including abortion, charity, poetry, the Watergate scandal, mental evasion versus mental passivity, defamation, the political status of mentally disabled individuals, open immigration, drug legalization, and the government’s power to censor the speech of military personnel.
SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
aynrand.us12.l...
SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S RUclips CHANNEL
www.youtube.co...
SUPPORT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE WITH A DONATION
ari.aynrand.or...
EXPLORE ARI
www.AynRand.org
FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
/ aynrandinst
LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
/ aynrandinstitute

[@gregorywinters8891]

This essay/talk is what I consider to be Ayn Rand's greatest of all her expositions - and there are many. It is a brilliant tour de force that anticipates today's cultural and political issues by nearly a half-century. Her observations are breathtaking in their soundness and clarity, and her mind soars beyond the simple-minded hypocrisy of the members of the 1973 SCOTUS. Miss Rand's passion and creativity are present throughout as she wears her love and appreciation for our country and its Constitution proudly on her sleeve.
This speech is like a wonderful piece of music that is timeless and can be listened to again and again, with new discoveries on each occasion. Regardless of your opinion of Ayn Rand or Objectvism, you owe it to yourself to listen to this talk and share it with as many of your friends and colleagues as you can. Very few who listen to it will have the same opinion about freedom as they did prior.

[@YashArya01]

58:50 Q&A

[@EarthSurferUSA]

Ayn Rand showed me that Philosophy is the foundation of how we live our lives, which I was not taught in my college Philosophy course, and neither were you. Ayn did not take a USA Philosophy course or she would have seen what a dirty trick they are. Let be describe your college Philosophy course, as if I had sat in the class with you, and I bet I am right, (sans my instructor asking the semester long question, "Does a table have a soul?" Yes, really.). "We sat in that class, taught about a bunch of lunatics who probably would have been institutionalized in a rational society, (sans Aristotle, who was not taught correctly), having no idea why we got a good grade, just glad the course was over, never to think about it again, (and we didn't)." For a subject that is the foundation of how man lives their lives, that is the dirtiest trick ever played on students in every college across the USA, (and all of Western Culture I am sure). That is the prime/foundational reason why we are falling into a dictatorship. We never learned the difference between Individualism vs. collectivism. As Ayn once wrote: "We will get exactly what we deserve, and it all depends on how we think."
We should redefine "Class action lawsuit", and sue these colleges for talking us out of our natural human rights, (based on each mind that can figure out reality if practiced), our individual liberty. Or do you believe man needs to be ruled by other men by force, like farm animals?
It is still our choice.

[@sivaramarajusiv7826]

Can anyone explain why she was talking about amendments

[@fab006]

Amendments to the US Constitution. They contain most of the individual rights protections in US constitutional law.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

Even though I am guilty of paying for 2 of them myself, (in my younger and dumber days), I do not agree with Ayn Rand about abortion. I believe her thinking is a bit shallow on this topic in the realm of individual liberty. Her premise was of the woman's right to make decisions about her body, which I do understand. But the premise of individual liberty is individual responsibility, and more than one individual is responsible for the pregnancy. Therefore, abortion should not be an action that is a result of voluntary irresponsible behavior. We must be responsible for our actions, to have individual liberty protected by law. The tricky part is a pregnancy due to a crime, like rape. But only if you believe, (like she must have), that life starts after birth and not inception. Many say human rights start after inception, and an abortion is the same as murder. Although I am sympathetic to that reasoning, and have believed that myself, that would also mean that if the woman had an accident, (say fall down the stairs), that caused a miscarriage, she (and the male partner possibly), would be guilty of manslaughter. In order to have true justice, I would have to say birth is the beginning of life, but individuals have to be responsible for their own actions.
Rape is a crime, and outside of the woman's responsible action. So an abortion has to be justified if chosen by the female.
I wish she were alive today. I would love to share those points with her. My bet is, she would congratulate me, and change her mind.

[@k85]

Could you elaborate on this idea of liberty coupled to responsibility. How could such a + and - not equal a moot 0?
What does this responsibility mean, exactly, in the case of abortion.
In the case of limiting abortion, to any extent, what you have to justify is the subjugation of the woman's life to some other interest. Please, just try and do that.