When is it Art? When is it Porn? (How Censorship isn't Really Anything and May Kill You)

So there is this:



It doesn't do to satirize satire, so I will not try.
For those who haven't, please watch the video; it is a phenomenal segment.
For those who just do not have time, here:

This is an example of network censorship.
The network that airs Stephen Colbert's Late Show is not allowing him to show a drawn picture of the female breasts.
They are, however, allowed to show that same image if it is associated with a smiling face.
However, and here is where it gets interesting, simply by changing the context (look at the gif) determines whether the network will censor the image or no.
The face is there under Colbert's hand; the audience knows, the censors know, and yet, because of the rules in place, the network is still required to censor his segment.

So that is the gist.
Given context will determine whether a piece of craft is art or pornography.
And the distinctions between them are nuanced and often arbitrary.
So what is the point of censorship?
It is to protect us?
Our delicate sensibilities?
From what?
From art?
From the human figure?

I have never understood censorship, but I do find that it always comes back to context.
If the context is there, then so too will censorship.
And why is that?
Well, for often seemingly noble and benevolent reasons:
Your freedom of speech is protected under the constitution, save under specific circumstances.
You are not allowed to start screaming fire in a crowded hall because it may cause needless injury or death.
Except when there really is a fire.

Christopher Hitchens.
One of my favorite orators on this subject of censorship and freedom of expression discusses it at length in this video.
In it, he discusses perhaps the most important ideas that I have ever heard:

"It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear."

This goes for everything.
In this video, he even exposes himself to abuse from the audience, allowing the audience to defy him (at their own peril) because it is important to hear opposing views.
And why does he do this?
In it he mentions John Stuart Mill and his supposition that:

If all in society are agreed on the truth of beauty and truth and value, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important that that one heretic be heard because we would still benefit.

 So any opposing view is important.
That anything that challenges our preconceptions, radically, dangerously has merit, that there might be a grain of truth somewhere.
He even goes so far as to mention Holocaust revisionists/detractors saying, yes, they are radical, yes they are fatuous, but even so, might we not learn something?

The point herein is that censorship denies two things:

• The right of the person to speak
• The right of the audience to hear to listen

The right of the audience to hear and to listen.

The audience's rights are being denied when censorship is involved.

Now, I have a pretty strong opinion on censorship and for allowing pretty much everything uncensored constantly.

The reason for this is simple:

If you have a line in the sand, where do you draw it?

Stephen Colbert in his segment exploits it for humor, but all of that art, and it most definitely is art, is available for public consumption. 

Why can it not be aired on public television?

Because children might see it?

So what?

It is art.

Is there an age limit?

What are the rules?

And why?

And for whom?

So if it is to protect the audience, it isn't, because censorship denies the rights of the audience.
So if it is to protect the author, it isn't, because censorship denies the rights of the creator.

Then censorship isn't for anything.

And therefore, censorship should be done away with.