Thus, he gets shocked when people call him a fascist. Notice, however, that it is him who is arguing for censorship. LT's take: (for more on this, check the listserv) - Moral sensibilities are important: we need shame and embarrassment to keep us from doing horrible things. Embarrassment: the feeling of being caught doing something private (i.e. copulating and being discovered by others) Shame: the bad feeling you get from engaging in morally inappropriate behavior. A society that allows everything is a society with no shame. Just society requires shame to play a regulating role in our life. - Advertising a good example: people pay millions to advertise because they believe that the media has an effect on shaping the beliefs and views of its watchers. Is it plausible that they are wrong on this? - LT against Bork: Opens with Q about knowledge of your moral character. Unless it is put to some tests, how can we possibly know if we have firm or weak moral character? Not sufficient to merely know right from wrong: Satan in Job seems to have a firm grasp on the distinction but is not a morally virtuous character. - Motivation key to character. With wrong motivation, right actions lose their moral worth. For example, we do not want you to do the right thing because you fear the consequences: ideally, we want you to do the right thing merely and solely because you think it is the right thing to do. - Can't know that you have right character without test. Censorship holds us away from such temptations. But then we cannot be thought of as having good moral character for shying away from pornography. We want people to do the right thing because it is right, not because the wrong option is banned. So censorship not a sufficient condition for having good moral character - Censorship also not necessary for a democracy's having a good general character. Why? Because without the things being censored, we won't know if we are possessed of the right type of character.