Originally, when the question of the government policing art such as pornography was posed, I was quite ambivalent with my position. I felt indecisive; on one hand, I support the idea of freedom of speech, yet on the other, I am against promoting outright pornography. When you address censorship, you must examine not only the artist's right to freedom of speech, but also the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I feel it is unfortunate that we have come to regard many different things as art; for instance, people handing out money on a street corner. With the silly acts or objects that some people pass off as art, it seems they feel they can do anything, no matter how ridiculous, and be protected from censorship by calling it art. Admittedly, I enjoy looking at a discreet nude photograph, and I feel that people should have access to whatever material they wish within the confines of the privacy of their homes - even though others may deem it "pornography," and condemn them their private thoughts. This is not the type of art most would prefer to see displayed at a public library. Without some form of policing or involvement by the government, our young people will get the impression that their types of activities are morally correct. Although this type of art is not in line with my own personal taste, I do feel that it should be acknowledged as an artful expression. Mapplethorpe is merely expressing himself as an individual. Regardless of how strange some may believe his photos to be, they must not be allowed to take away his freedom of expression. In essence, what I am not saying is that Robert Mapplethorpe should not be restricted from creating art. I am simply proposing that his presentations of expression should be limited to private showings. He should be permitted to show his work publicly, however, the artist must warn his viewers of the graphic nature that his work portrays. Artists are ofte...