Principles, in regards to human society, are sometimes defined as those moral and ethical guidelines that dont change. Mores and customs found throughout the world differ greatly from one another. In some countries dogs provide a common food source; in most Western nations this would seem deplorable. In this country, the United States of America, our freedom of speech, the freedom to express our ideas and opinions is not only guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, it is also a universally held value, and even greater, it is a principle.

Censorship however is a universal function, not merely a phenomenon that emerges randomly from time to time in the form of political persecution. Censorship is something we do as individuals every time we refuse to discuss, refuse to dialog, every time we decide that instead of offering our contrary opinion in the face of someone who says something we dont like, we seek to silence them instead.

There is also a function of human behavior called fear response. I see this at work in the world of martial arts which crosses, from time to time, into the world of self defense. Most of us understand that many places in the world are filled with danger. How people response to perceived danger, that is danger which has not become manifest, falls into two categories.

1.The first response is to seek self-empowerment. This can take the form of spiritual development, or direct training, such as martial arts. Some people choose to carry weapons for self-defense. Sometimes self-empowerment can further exacerbate fear but usually sincere self-empowerment makes the individual well more powerful. Predators generally dont seek powerful prey and so this path is usually successful.

2.The second response is the most insidious and fearful. It is an attempt to UNempower those who are perceived as the enemy. In other words, instead of making oneself stronger, one attempts to make the enemy weaker. This, I believe, is at the center of the fight to have the right to own and carry firearms for protection in the US. Opponents think that by removing this right (also guaranteed by the Bill of Rights) they will make themselves safer from gun violence. Unfortunately there is a misperception of whom the enemy is and citizens end up trying to take away the rights from their fellow citizens. Criminals, the real enemy, are unconcerned by laws and so this approach, historically, doesn't work.

How does this relate to the freedom of speech and censorship? Well, lets say, hypothetically, there was a forum which was created by Buddhists for Buddhists. Unfortunately in this forum the list manager decides that its his job to censor posts which he deems offensive or generally inappropriate. Lets say also that someone who participated in that forum went to yet another forum and criticized that first forum for blatant censorship.

There should be no problem since the list upon which the disgruntled author criticized the list manager is an open forum on which the list manager can reply to the criticism. This would amount to the first fear response, which is to empower oneself through open dialog, albeit perhaps a debate or even an argument.

However, what would happen if, instead of responding and defending himself, the list manager attempted, through vague threats, to have the disgruntled participators post removed from the second forum? See where Im going with this? That would be the more insidious second fear response, the attempt to censor or unempower the enemy.

As Lisa Jones has stated, if youre reading this you probably have some connection to Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. It is not possible, in my opinion, to have that connection without having some clear concept of what is good behavior, and what is not. We, as Buddhists, do that which is right not because there is someone who will punish us if we dont, rather because we are Buddhists, and in the case of Nichiren Buddhists we follow the teachings of true universal human freedom. Daisaku Ikeda has referred to the Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin as the true teaching of universal democracy.
That would, of course, include the freedom of expression, and the freedom from being censored. Anything else simply wouldnt be Buddhist.

Of course, if someone posts something say, on this blog, or even if the owner of zadankai@yahoogroups.com, so well-known for anti-censorship, sees something posted which could potentially place it in legal jeopardy, then it would possibly have to be removed. Even more simply if I own a discussion list on the internet I should be able to control what is posted to it. The real question isn't about what is legal, its really about what kind of person I want to be. Its about how we all want to see ourselves.

In the end we have to live with ourselves and our actions. It is up to each of us to behave in a manner which we can honestly defend and in which we can believe. It is also up to each of us to be fully responsible for our actions, even if we realize they were wrong, and in the end not hide behind our functions and titles, our even our group affiliations .

So can censorship be legal? Certainly. Can it be nesseceary from time to time? Sure. Do I personally want to see myself trying to shut someone else up because I don't like what they say about me? If I were, I wouldn't be

Rev. Greg, Shidoshi