the freedom of a madhouse cannot benrecommended to normal, sane people asna social model. Freedom is human, thusnit must not be immune to the limitationsnand relativities of everything human. Itnthus can be restructured, repaired, regulatednand amended according to humannneeds and recognition. There is nothingnmetaphysical or sacrosanct about freedom,nand people of as much moral frailtynas any of us must not be permitted toncommand more freedom than anyonenelse—which is exactly what the pressnclamors for itself. The pornographicnpollution threatens the very core of interhumannbonds; it has exceeded by far thenvisual sphere and averting our eyes fromnwhat we do not wish to see (the Timesnstyle liberals term it our “constitutionalnright”) no longer helps. Abomination isnin the air and a moment has come whennwe must revise our notion of freedom asnit pertains to pornography. Certainly, thenTimes may claim that to protect thenfreedom of the airwaves we shouldnrefrain from breathing, but this sort ofn”freedom” of the media may meet somenstiff resistance.nBut, of course, it would be a weakneditorial, from the liberal standpoint, ifnit only made such smartly-insipid demands.nThe Times boldly goes further,nand derides the Supreme Court’s concernnabout the media’s insensitivity (we wouldnprefer callousness) to the rights of privacynand personal reputation. It then insolentlyndeclares: “In the name of protectingnsecrets, the censorship of books criticizingngovernment has begun”—and offersnan astonishingly impudent counsel to thengovernment and society:”. . .secrets cannbe guarded.”nOne marvels at how many subtle prevaricationsncan be crammed into thensentences of one editorial. The New YorknTimes is one of the top architects of anreality in which anyone who divulgesnsecrets, betrays the American government,nor breaks an oath of service, isninstantly and royally rewarded withnmoney and fame. The media’s sycophants,ncolumnists, feature “writers”nimmediately build up any human piecenof psychotic, ellsbergian nothingness inton361nChronicles of Ciillurena national movement. One is amazednhow far prevarication can go withoutnbeing called an outright lie: “. . .there isnno such thing as a little bit of prudentncensorship,” intones the Times. A studynby Accuracy in Media, published in 1977nproves beyond doubt that the New YorknTimes itself censors the news. Duringn1976, NFTran 66 stories on the humannrights violations in Chile, 61 stories onnthe same in South Korea, 4 in Cambodia,n3 in Cuba, zero in North Korea. To annunprejudiced eye, life in South Korea isnparadise for 99% of its population asncompared to life in Cambodia, but thenNew York Times engages in what is innfact censorship by withholding from thenAmerican people the news that does notnfit its ideology. The editors of the Timesncertainly do not want communism fornthemselves, but consider it infinitelynbetter than anything else for Chileans,nCubans, Koreans, Zambians, Rhodesians,nUkrainians, Vietnamese, etc. —innkeeping with that repulsive liberal moralncategory which helpless ironists call selectivenconscience. Actually, it is a “bit ofnprudent censorship,” as every editing is,nand it is only their adamantly calling itnParade’s Informed OpinionnParade, which calls itself The SundaynNewspaper Magazine, and goes to millionsnof American homes on the day ofnworship and rest, features an introductoryndepartment entitled “Walter Scott’snPersonality Parade.” Every week, a WalternScott answers questions of thisnkind:n”Question: Did Liza Minelli ever livenwith Lucille Ball’s ex-husband, DesinArnaz.”nAnswer: No. She was in love for a whilenwith his son, Desi Jr., but then—as isnher way—moved on to others.nQuestion: What is meant by this sentence:n’Erroll Flynn was a sexual adventurer.^’nAnswer: In the case of the late film star,nit means he slept with many women.”nnn”journalistic unassailability” that makesnpeople mad. Apparently, the editors ofnthe Times do not understand that, fornsome time, they and their powerful liberalnconfreres in the press have been considerednby the rest of society as a specialninterest group with exceptional privilegesnhell-bent on preserving their supremacynby any means. Thus, accordingly hatednand despised, their latent totalitarianism,ndaily presented as “service to the people,”nwhose “right to know” is manipulatednby what the press wants them to know,nis nowadays in obvious conflict with thenethos of the American democracy. Cantnraised to an absolute does not cease to bencant: the Times pretends to defend usnfrom the excess of power and incessantlyngathers in more power. It exhorts thenSupreme Court to “diffuse” power, andnat the same time concentrates and formsnan increasing tyranny of opinion-making.nIt accuses those who oppose it of “orthodoxy”—thenSupreme Court, parents andnteachers, non-liberal moralists and educators—whilenrabidly upholding the orthodoxynof its own exceptionality. Whichnwill only breed more and more hatred innthe future. (LT) DnWhy a person in Jacksonville, Floridanwants to know exactly when and withnwhom a film actress of sleazy calibernlived —unless personal matters are involved—willnremain one of the moreninsoluble enigmas of our time. That anwoman in Erie, Pa. has to ask a newspapernwhat a “sexual adventurer” is, isnthe triumph of the low-brow pop-culturalnbrainwashing touted as the mission ofnAmerican Journalism these days. Afternall. “Walter Scott” advertises his columnnby his journalistic ideology: “Want thenfacts.” Want the informed opinions.?nWrite Walter Scott . . .” The FirstnAmendment is all his. DnNext Persuasion At Work:nTWIN BREAKTHROUGH!n