Is censorship ever justified?

I'm not sure a complete disolution of all censorship would be totally wise. I mean, some younger people might watch an 18 rated horror movie and either be scarred for life or think that something that happened in that movie, just because of the way it was portrayed might be 'right'.

Other things have stupid censorships, just for the shear hell of it. It's a big deal towards why the UK at least is going to pot. Everything is being censored or banned JUST INCASE it leads to something happening. Soon the government will be banning stairs just incase everyone starts falling down them.

I have to say, an awful lot of things with higher age ratings should be lowered. I mean, why have an age of consent at 16 (in the UK) but not be allowed to watch movies with high levels of sex or pornographic scenes?

If you're allowed to be sexually active, why then say you're not allowed to get the full benefits of all things sexual before 18?? Eg buying dildos or pornographic films.

The problem I see with taking away censorship of things like swearing/extreme violence in films etc, the youth of today is far too impressionable; as soon as something looks like it has the potential to be considered 'cool' a lot of young people will happily start doing it, even if they know it's wrong.

I do agree however that people should be allowed to have the freedom of will to choose what they view, not to have to listen to the government who certainly can't know what's the right thing for each individual person in life.

0 Replies

honey_rose_cr wrote:

I'm not sure a complete disolution of all censorship would be totally wise. I mean, some younger people might watch an 18 rated horror movie and either be scarred for life or think that something that happened in that movie, just because of the way it was portrayed might be 'right'.

Yeah, you're right, that could happen. But I'm not against parents making decisions about what they let their children watch on TV or at the cinema. Maybe those decisions should be left with parents, and not with censors who quite often don't know what's best for everybody.

Censorship doesn't appear to be evidence-based; many things are censored because they are believed to have harmful consequences, when in fact they probably don't. Especially books and music... I'm aware that young children might watch somebody doing something violent on TV and then try to imitate it, but I don't think that happens with books or songs. They might repeat swear words, but there's nothing dangerous about that.

I'm against that incitement to religious hatred law too, people should be allowed to express their views no matter how hateful and wrong they are. It's fair enough to charge somebody with actually conspiring to commit a specific crime, but it shouldn't be criminal to express extremely controversial opinions. The danger in doing that is that every now and then, an extremely controversial view turns out to be correct, and needs to be heard.

0 Replies

The word censorship has a negative connotation. Can we call it, "sorting the facts"? I have no problem with sorting the facts, since not everyone can make a meaningful analysis of opinions or facts.
The desire not to sort the facts (aka ban censorship), I believe can be based on the false belief that we are all intellectually equal, and therefore deserve the same option to analyze data/news/opinions.
There are people who are easily led to negative (for society), false beliefs. Only sorting the facts (aka censorship) can save them from this tendency.
For example, how many people change their religion from the religion of their family? Not many I believe. If we had a greater propensity to analyze beliefs we were taught, I believe many more people would be changing their religion of birth.
Sorting the facts functions as a brake of sorts on society, so we don't have social upheaval. Like we were told in kindergarten, "Children, play nice."

0 Replies

I strongly disagree. We can't trust some stranger or some government body to 'sort the facts' for us. Some people disagree about what a fact is, or what truth is, so it's no good having some bloke making assumptions about it and then dictating to us what is true. And it's no good having him dictate to us what is good for society... some people don't always want what's good for society.

Sorting the facts is what scientists and philosophers do, not censors. And even they get it wrong half the time. Individuals should be taught at school to sort the facts for themselves - maybe philosophy lessons should be compulsory - and then we can decide for ourselves what we ought to see/hear/read.

We might never all be intellectually equal, but that doesn't mean the 'intellectually superior' should do all the thinking for the less clever people. Because who is say to which of us are the clever ones? Simpler just to let everybody make their own minds up, and to do your best to persuade the people that get it 'wrong' - not to trick people into believing what's 'right' by only showing them the information that will lead them to believe what's 'right'. That's just manipulation.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

We might never all be intellectually equal, but that doesn't mean the 'intellectually superior' should do all the thinking for the less clever people. Because who is say to which of us are the clever ones? Simpler just to let everybody make their own minds up, and to do your best to persuade the people that get it 'wrong' - not to trick people into believing what's 'right' by only showing them the information that will lead them to believe what's 'right'. That's just manipulation.

If I have the history correct, prior to WWII there were some British that were for appeasing Hitler. Wasn't it Winston Churchill that was against appeasement? As history played itself out, the appeasers did not rule the day, so to speak. But, there could have been a different outcome. You could have been speaking another language now. So, if you value English as your language, I think sorting the facts, on occasion, is necessary to make sure a correct course of action is adhered to.
I'm not saying any censorship took place at that point in history, but if it was needed to make sure the appeasers did not rule the day, I would have been very happy to think that censorship helped the UK survive the Nazi onslaught.
My point is that being 100% anti-censorship, in my opinion, is just too rigid for the complexities of evolving politics, evolving social mores, and a heterogenous democracy.
I say the above in context of being an American Anglophile and believing the British gave the world a language that allows mankind to think in subtle nuances that aids in our survival as a species.

0 Replies

" Is censorship ever justified? "

Yes; in military circumstances.

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

" Is censorship ever justified? "

Yes; in military circumstances.

David

But only if you agree with George Bush.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
" Is censorship ever justified? "

Yes; in military circumstances.

David
But only if you agree with George Bush.

No.
Military censorship existed long b4 the Bush family.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

I'm not saying any censorship took place at that point in history, but if it was needed to make sure the appeasers did not rule the day, I would have been very happy to think that censorship helped the UK survive the Nazi onslaught.

I still completely disagree. It's dangerous to let the majority silence the minority. What if Churchill was not the prime minister, and was just one lonely voice in parliament, surrounded by a majority in favour of appeasing Hitler? For safety's sake, the most unpopular views should always get heard so that we can have the majority's view challenged, and see whether it survives the challenge and is as robust an opinion as we hope it is.

Christopher Hitchens puts this better than I do. He's a British Americanophile, and he's very good with words. Watch the video I linked to tin the first post of this thread, if you're interested.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

" Is censorship ever justified? "

Yes; in military circumstances.

Why? COuld you give an example?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Foofie wrote:
I'm not saying any censorship took place at that point in history, but if it was needed to make sure the appeasers did not rule the day, I would have been very happy to think that censorship helped the UK survive the Nazi onslaught.

I still completely disagree. It's dangerous to let the majority silence the minority. What if Churchill was not the prime minister, and was just one lonely voice in parliament, surrounded by a majority in favour of appeasing Hitler? For safety's sake, the most unpopular views should always get heard so that we can have the majority's view challenged, and see whether it survives the challenge and is as robust an opinion as we hope it is.

Christopher Hitchens puts this better than I do. He's a British Americanophile, and he's very good with words. Watch the video I linked to tin the first post of this thread, if you're interested.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
" Is censorship ever justified? "

Yes; in military circumstances.

Why? COuld you give an example?

I cud.
For instance,
if an embedded journalist in a military expeditionary force
observed a shortage of fuel, or a shortage of nite vision equipment,
or of water, or to a flaw in the strategic disposition of the troops,
or to his host's military intentions and raiding plans,
his publicising of this information
cud alert the enemy to weak points
that the enemy can apply to his advantage in killing
the military personnel who r playing host to the journalist;
( e.g., preparing an ambush to receive an anticipated raid )

One of the Principles of War is Surprize.

David

0 Replies

David, that's a very good point. I'll have to refine my view on censorship...

I think that we have a right to free expression and free speech, and that includes a right to be heard and not be silenced. If a person wishes or tries to say or express something, he/she should not be censored. Your military example would not fit this description, because the military are not trying to express what they know. They have a right to tell the enemy about their weak points etc., and to not be censored, but they have chosen not to exercise that right. We are free to express ourselves without censorship, but we don't have to. We're also free to keep secrets and have privacy.

But I'm not sure what should happen if an individual soldier, say, wanted to tell the enemy everything he knew. He'd be wanting to exercise the right of free speech, so according to my view he should not be censored... but then maybe the army should keep him quiet. To solve that problem, another think that crossed my mind was that maybe we should only be free to express opinions, not established facts. E.g. if you believe that what the army is doing is wrong, or ineffective, or whatever, then you have a right to say that and be heard. But if you know the army's plan of attack, or say you're a doctor and you know that someone has an embarassing illness, you should not necessarily be allowed to reveal that information.

So I think that we have an absolute right to free expression of belief or opinion, and also things like feelings and fantasies which can be expressed through art (e.g. a taboo sexual fantasy depicted in a film). These things should not be censored. We also have an absolute right to not express these things. And as for the freedom to reveal actual knowledge rather than mere belief or opinion, this should not be an absolute freedom. Some facts, or established information, should be kept confidential, or 'censored' if you like (e.g. criminal records) - unlike beliefs/opinions, which are not established facts and should be allowed to be expressed without censorship for the sake of alerting us to possibilities we may not previously have considered.

Basically, censorship of fact/knowledge is okay, and confidentiality is okay. Does that sound alright?

0 Replies

Responding to the earlier response from agrote, we are both concerned with "safety's sake." I just believe that censorship does allow safety to always prevail. Possibly, my opinion reflects the size of the U.S., its population size, and its amazing diversity of ethnic/religious groups. With such diversity, there are many different types of feathers to get ruffled (needlessly) if they were confronted to offensive (in their opinion) positions of others.
The U.S. is a young country. Was censorship ever utilized, when there was a need to gel the Pics, Brits, Angles, Celts, Welsh into a cohesive state?
I'm not really worried whether society has a lively debate about one view or another. I don't believe that the "winner" of the debate will necessarily be the view that is most ethical (perhaps most robust, but robust is good for wines, I thought). There is a selfish streak in humane nature I believe.

0 Replies

Well the UK is by no means perfect or racially harmonious, so there might not be much you can learn from us. I 'm not sure that ruffled feathers are a bad thing. People need to be prepared to have their views challenged, even (or especially) ones that seem so absolutely true. E.g. if soembody thinks that black people are inferior to white people, that view should be heard, and argued with. Arguing with such people puts your own views to the test, and the most robust opinions win.

Robustness is a good measure of accuracy, I think. Winning a debate doesn't mean you're right, but if your actual view is robust enough to survive criticism (regardless of whether you personally are skilled enough to defend it i na debate), then that's a good indication that it's a reasonable view to hold. If there was a completely free exchange of ideas, including offensive ideas, then perhaps, say, racists would have more oppurtunity to realise the ridiculousness of their beliefs (shouting them down or condemning them just makes them stronger).