Brent Everett Free Bottoms

An old and brief interview with philosopher Raphael Franchini censorship

As part of an investigation on the problem of film censorship, "published on" Review of the South "by Friday, February 18, 1983, I had the opportunity to have a brief conversation on the subject with Raffaello Franchini.
Here is the text of the interview.

- What is your opinion on film censorship?
I am opposed to any form of censorship by the state because they do not see how the censors would be entrusted as guardians of morality, nor, on the other hand, is always true that they are able to know what is moral . The idea that censorship can prevent crime is an idea I'm not convinced at all. While all are able to clearly define what is a steal or what is a robbery, does not mean that everyone is able to define a concept as well as that of "common sense of decency." The crime, if anything, should be prosecuted ex officio by the judge as well as, moreover, is required by the Constitution itself: but it is known that what is required by the Constitution is not always applied in reality, not always translated into law. Furthermore, we must also consider another aspect. The risk of the complaint is that its losses, now it is almost always granted, is more often translated into economic sensational victories for the organizers and sponsors of events censored. So I think that, apart from the prohibition of the film shows aimed at children (translated into reality in prohibition prohibition against more who would never like to watch pornographic performances) is more correct to punish rather than the offense.
- Why? Why
repression is always in itself odious and inevitably leaves us perplexed. It also gives the victim of the repressive the halo of a martyr. Only the punishment, however, when of course the judiciary be able to play with real efficiency and impartiality of its tasks can be a real and effective deterrent for the crimes.
- "A picture is art portray a morally praiseworthy or blameworthy - Benedetto Croce wrote in 1913 in his Breviary of Aesthetics - but the image itself, as an image, is neither commendable nor morally reprehensible. Not only that there can be no criminal code which can be condemned to prison or to death an image, but no moral judgments, given by a reasonable person, can make its object .... " It is a clear vindication of the autonomy of art from all morality and its incensurabilità as art. What do you think?
Yes, all right, but who, in our case, establish that it is artistic and not pornographic image? Not even an expert could do it. So for the poet (if he is a poet) is not taking the risk dell'incriminazione.