Freedom to Read

One of the great things about living in a democracy is that we all have the freedom to worship (or not in my case) and to think. I buy and sell CDs, Books, and Zippos on Amazon and Ebay. Until recently I did not have any ethical concerns about doing this. However, if I had copies of any of the books that were available legally in the 70s or 80s such as ‘Kill Without Joy’, ‘Silent Death’, or ‘The Anarchist’s Arsenal’ would I be acting ethically to by selling them? Would anyone who bought them be breaking the law? people have been prosecuted, and found guilty, after down loading ‘material capable of aiding terrorists’ from the Internet. I am uncomfortable with this law. When did reading become a crime? Is there a list of acceptable and unacceptable books? Is the decision as to what is acceptable made on a case by case basis? Does that mean that a white, middle class, middle aged male may own a book but a working class, Asian, young male may not? I freely admit that I owned these books and looked at the Anarchist’s Cookbook on the web in the 80s. However, I did not kill or injure anyone, or use any of the material for criminal acts. I bought the books because they were, well, interesting. (I also doubt whether much of the contents is correct. How would I know? I never tried to make Ricin, but I would not follow the instructions contained on a web site). If I owned them now would that be illegal? Should anyone who currently owns copies of these books burn them? That would bring back memories of intolerance and bigotry. There are classes of material that I am happy to have banned. The obvious example is child pornography. Child pornography is rightly banned. The basis for banning it should be because of the exploitation of the children photographed. The point is that child exploitation is wrong and illegal. Viewing such material encourages and condones a dreadful and illegal act. Racist material is also wrong and I am happy for that to be also banned. Knowledge is power. There should be no limit placed on it. There should be limits placed on actions. The planning or conducting terrorist acts is where the illegality should rest. Anyone planning to commit terrorist attacks should be prosecuted. The prosecution should have to show their intentions in terms of plans and actions, not their reading habits alone. I fear that our freedoms are being restricted, in the name of freedom. It seems to me that there has been little public debate about the price we have to pay for our freedoms. There are people who want to restrict our freedoms and use terrorism as their weapon. What I can not decide is whether they are winning.