[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-420170-105":59,"doc-detail-420170-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","thought-control-vol3-no2-part-iii","THOUGHT CONTROL - Vol.3 No.2 - Part III -","","THOUGHT CONTROL argues that attempts to forbid thoughts—especially sexual thoughts—do not succeed and instead function to produce guilt and erode self-esteem. It critiques religious censorship by using historical examples from film censorship campaigns and contrasting public moral responses to different sexual images. The text distinguishes legitimate legal protection for minors and unconsenting adults from broader moral censorship, and challenges political and legal rationales used to justify obscenity restrictions, citing Supreme Court reasoning.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":45,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/religion-spirituality/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/thought-control-vol3-no2-part-iii/420170/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/thought-control-vol3-no2-part-iii/420170.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"supergirl","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-08","2026-09-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why does the text argue that prohibiting thoughts is impossible?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It states that prohibiting thought cannot work, and religious authorities do not aim to eliminate such thoughts. Instead, they aim to induce guilt to undermine a person’s self-esteem.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What distinction does the text make between censorship and legitimate law?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It argues that only protecting minors and unconsenting adults is legitimate. Restraints on certain public displays are framed as procedural or etiquette matters, not as moral censorship of thoughts or speech.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the text criticize legal justifications for obscenity restrictions?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It cites Supreme Court reasoning that rejects obscenity’s social importance and then questions how much information “members of society” require before free discussion is allowed. It further argues that moral justifications focus on social order while ignoring the rights and development of those who supply essential knowledge.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},420170,1790922349,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":44,"category_name":45,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":34,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962088121634,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","al  \nOctober 22,1973  \nVol.III,No.2  \n# THOUGHT CONTROL\n\nPart III  \nThe theoreticians of religion know that it is impossible to prohibitthought.They do not expect the ban on sexual thoughts to be obeyed.Theirpurpose is not to abolish such thoughts,but to induce guilt-and thus toundercut man's self-esteem.  \nThe following small incident captures the essence of the religious cen-sors'mentality.In the 1930s,the \"self-censorship\"office of the movie in-dustry(known as the Hays Office or,later,the Johnson Office)went on oneof its periodic crusades against sex in the movies.That office was run pre-dominantly by a religious organization,the Purity League.The two foremostsex symbols of the period were Greta Garbo and Mae West,who embodied two di-ametrically opposite attitudes:Garbo projected an exquisitely spiritual,exalted,man-worshiping sexuality -Mae West offered an \"earthy,\"eye-winking,hip-swinging,humorously vulgar image that verged on the obscene,projectingthe silent invitation:\"Come,one and all.\"A representative of the censor-ship office was quoted as saying:\"We don't mind Mae West -she makes sexludicrous.  What we oppose is Greta Garbo -she makes it glamorous.\"  \nUse your own judgment on the question of whose goal is \"to deprave orcorrupt.\"  \nIn this respect,modern hippies -with their insistence on personal ug-liness or \"natural,\"unglamorous appearance,their undifferentiated,\"unisex\"style of dressing,and their\"uninhibited\"freedom to copulate in public -are demonstrating one more aspect of their fundamental affinity with the con-ventional premises of mysticism:the view of sex as an animal function.  \nToday,it is the publicly flaunted,disgusting sexuality of hippie youths,of senile repressers,and of their panderers in books and movies,which drivespeople to support the religionists'clamor for censorship.This aspect of theissue is wider than religious influences:civilized men do not tolerate publicdisplays of sub-animal sex.Many people regard a public representation ofsexual intercourse as disgusting -not because sex is evil,but precisely be-cause it is a value,an exception-making value that requires privacy.Censor-ship,however,is not the solution:resorting to censorship is like cutting aman's head off in order to cure a cold.  \nOnly one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation:the pro-tection of minors and of unconsenting adults.Apart from criminal actions(such as rape),this aspect includes the need to protect people from beingconfronted with sights they regard as loathsome.  (A corollary of the free-dom to see and hear,is the freedom not to look or listen.)Legal restraintson certain types of public displays,such as posters or window displays,areproper -but this is an issue of procedure,of etiquette,not of morality.  \nNo one has the right to do whatever he pleases on a public street(norwould he have such a right on a privately owned street)。The police powerto maintain order among pedestrians or to control traffic is a procedural,not a substantive,power.A traffic policeman enforces rules of how to drive(in order to avoid clashes or collisions),but cannot tell you where to go.Similarly,the rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringedby rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive -e.g.,sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places;warningsigns,such as \"For Adults Only,\"may properly be required of private placeswhich are open to the public.This protects the unconsenting,and has noth-ing to do with censorship,i.e.,with prohibiting thought or speech.  \nReligious influences are not the only villain behind the censorship leg-islation;there is another one:the social school of morality,exemplified byJohn Stuart Mill.Mill rejected the concept of individual rights and replacedit with the notion that the\"public good\"is the sole justification of indi-vidual freedom。(Society,he argued,has the power to enslave or destroy itsexceptional men,but it should permit them to be fre","cbCaioRH1PfLoAFU","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioRH1PfLoAFU","pdf",2452952,"English","# THOUGHT CONTROL\n## Part III\n### Religious censorship and guilt\n### Public displays, consent, and legal restraint\n### Social morality and Supreme Court rationales","[{\"question\":\"Why does the text argue that prohibiting thoughts is impossible?\",\"answer\":\"It states that prohibiting thought cannot work, and religious authorities do not aim to eliminate such thoughts. Instead, they aim to induce guilt to undermine a person’s self-esteem.\"},{\"question\":\"What distinction does the text make between censorship and legitimate law?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that only protecting minors and unconsenting adults is legitimate. Restraints on certain public displays are framed as procedural or etiquette matters, not as moral censorship of thoughts or speech.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the text criticize legal justifications for obscenity restrictions?\",\"answer\":\"It cites Supreme Court reasoning that rejects obscenity’s social importance and then questions how much information “members of society” require before free discussion is allowed. It further argues that moral justifications focus on social order while ignoring the rights and development of those who supply essential knowledge.\"}]","THOUGHT CONTROL - Vol.3 No.2 - Part III - | PDF",1790619785,18]