Is censorship ever justified?

i think lots of women would love walking around nude to see the reaction of men also walking around nude.

or should i say re-erection! ok enough high school humor.

0 Replies

Without censorhip we could :

- indulge inNationwide character assasignation by spreading vicious lies through the media (libel/slander is a specialised form of censorship)

- Distribute national secrets (laws against this are another form of censorship)

-Distribute personal secrets

-Distribute corporately owned information (information copyright is another form of specialised censorship)

-Spread kiddy porn without fear of retribution (pictures can be censored as well as words)

-Make freely available guidelines for making bombs

-Make freely available guidelines on setting up, planning, and initiating a terrorist cell & terrorist attack

-Publish security procedures for highly protected facilities

-Publish all the weak links in national economies (ie the prime targets) for terrorists to pick and choose from

-publish lies about other cultures in order to foster hate between them

-make freely available to kids anything you don't want them to learn, known, hear or see (unless you plan on censoring what you don't want censored).

Of course that's not to say these things aren't already able to be done on the net (due to the lack of censorship)

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Without censorhip we could :
- Distribute national secrets (laws against this are another form of censorship)
-Distribute personal secrets
-Distribute corporately owned information (information copyright is another form of specialised censorship)
-Make freely available guidelines for making bombs
-Make freely available guidelines on setting up, planning, and initiating a terrorist cell & terrorist attack
-Publish security procedures for highly protected facilities
-Publish all the weak links in national economies (ie the prime targets) for terrorists to pick and choose from

I agree with you there. I've changed my mind a bit (see one of my previous posts). I still think that freedom to express opinions and beliefs which are not established facts should be absolute (also, we should be free to express feelings etc. through art). But freedom to reveal knowledge, or information, should be limited.

So if you believe that the holocaust never happened, you should have the right to be heard; most people believe that the holocaust did happen, but there's a chance that it didn't and so anybody who believes that it didn't has a right to put that forward as a possibility. But if you want to tell a group of racists how they can most effectively lynch a black man, you should perhaps get in trouble for that because you're just using your knowledge to help people commit crimes.

The importance of freedom to express opinions is that every now and then, a very controversial belief which is not established as fact (e.g. the belief that women should have the vote) turns out to be right. So we should be free to say anything that may or may not be true, and to be heard. But our freedom to say what we know is true should be limited where appropriate. Obviously it's hard to know what's opinion and what's knowledge, and where to draw the line, but I think it could be worked out somehow... maybe. What do you think?

Quote:

- indulge inNationwide character assasignation by spreading vicious lies through the media (libel/slander is a specialised form of censorship)
-publish lies about other cultures in order to foster hate between them

Yes, I think you're right again. Censorship of lies is okay, because lies are not opinions or feelings. Lying is pretending to believe something which you do not believe. I don't think that restrictions on telling lies hinder our freedom to express ourselves, because lying is expressing something which you don't believe.

Quote:

-Spread kiddy porn without fear of retribution (pictures can be censored as well as words)

I'm not sure that this is a problem. It is, and should be, illegal to abuse children, or to film the abuse of children.

(In my thread on the age of consent, I defend non-abusive sexual relations with adolescent 'children'... I'm sure that you disagree with me there, but I think that we both agree that abusive sex with anybody of any age should remain criminalised.)

So it's illegal to make the kiddy porn in the first place. Should it then be illegal for those who come across those pictures to distribute them? I'm not sure. When the American troops abused those imprisoned terrorists, their behaviour was condemned but the media was not condemned for publishing the photographs of the abuse. And I think that makes sense. Is there really any difference between that and distributing pictures of child abuse after the child abuse has already occured?

I suppose the main difference is that some people would use the pictures to arouse themselves. But if that's a crime, it's a victimless one (unless they have acquired the pictures by paying money to the abusers, and therefore have funded the child abuse). And while a necrophiliac might be aroused by a picture of a dead body in a newspaper, that doesn't mean that the newspaper should be punished for publishing it. I think that it should be a crime to abuse children, to photograph them being abused, or to pay child abusers for photographs of abuse. But if somebody freely acquires some 'kiddy porn', I can't see the justification in punishing them for freely distributing it.

But I suppose that censoring photographs could come under my claim that it's okay to censor information or knowledge. Genuine photographs which depict factual events should perhaps be censored in some cases, because censoring them would not limit freedom of expression.

Quote:

-make freely available to kids anything you don't want them to learn, known, hear or see (unless you plan on censoring what you don't want censored).

Well I don't think that there should be any government-imposed censorship of beliefs, opinions, works of art etc., not even for children. So I think that swearing and sex should be allowed on TV at any time, and I think that organisations such as the BBFC should not exist, and people of any age should be able to legally watch '18' films, etc. But that wouldn't stop parents 'censoring' what their children read, hear or see, and nor should it. Perhaps it's just censorship laws that I am against. Parents should be free to make their own choices about what they show to their children.

If a friend came and asked to borrow a book from me, and I refused, you could call that censorship, but that's not quite what I'm talking about in this thread. I have nothing against parents doing similar things, but it should not actually be illegal for children to experience whatever artworks they choose to (because the legal right of the artist to free expression includes the legal right for the artists' expressions to be heard/seen by anybody). Same goes for opinions and views.

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

i think lots of women would love walking around nude to see the reaction of men also walking around nude.

or should i say re-erection! ok enough high school humor.

Those women shud arise and betake themselves
to a nudist colony.

David

0 Replies

Christopher Hitchens argument first is essentially that censorship could actually deny all concerned the actual truth and secondly that minority dissent forces us to re-examine accepted truths such as a geo-centric universe or the flat earth theory.

I always felt that holocaust denial (given its solid foundation in documented truths) allows us to look into the minds, upbringing, and educational background of those who foster such denials. How often do we get to peer into the minds and perceive the intention of others? Recently Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, allowed us a peek into his intents by trying to incite animus towards Israel with just this tactic of denial. Given he convinces his followers that the Jews are just a bunch of millenniums old trouble makers he can then justify their elimination and all those that support them, i.e. the west in general.

Censorship in war is justified for the same legal reason as is violence against other humans: self preservation.

Pornography has always been a favorite subject of mine. Other than the obvious personal attraction it is the obvious subjectivity of the entire concept. There are all types of pornography, probably as many as there are individuals on this earth. To me the thought of two (or more) men having sex is perverse, to others the thought of a man and a women having sex, even if consensual, is perverse. Older women having sex with young boys is perverse and unnatural to some (but probably not to the participants). The list goes on and on. Is it pornographic for one person to have sex with his/herself or just perverse? Is it the camera that makes it pornographic? Are any of the sexual acts of a husband and wife pornographic? How about if they record those acts on video tape so they can view them later...with their heterosexual neighbors?

Is it important as to the subjects involved or just plain subjective?

I've always felt the statement: "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it" says it all.

Freedom of expression is not only one of America's most basic freedoms it is its most important. This is grounded in James Madison's concept of the protection of minority rights. Democracy is all well and good but without the tolerance of minority opinions we will fall into the abyss of majority consensus that Hitchens alludes to. The concept of the loyal opposition is practices in very few areas of this world. Democracy explains only one third of the success of the U.S. Another third is accounted for by Madison's minority rights protected by the rule of law. The last third of America's "secret" of success is that of a free market society--the Jeffersonian pursuit of happiness.

All of these freedoms based on Hitchens' concept of freedom of expression, where, perhaps a bigot or filmmaker's freedom of expression is a necessary "price to pay" for everyone's right of expression.

JM

0 Replies

Quote:

But that wouldn't stop parents 'censoring' what their children read, hear or see, and nor should it. Perhaps it's just censorship laws that I am against. Parents should be free to make their own choices about what they show to their children.

Out of curiosity on this particular aspect...if there was no censorship of swearing...allowing all TV shows to have swearing etc...how then can a parent 'choose' which shows to allow their children to watch? (because all shows have swearing, there is no longer any choice left to watch a show without swearing.)

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
But that wouldn't stop parents 'censoring' what their children read, hear or see, and nor should it. Perhaps it's just censorship laws that I am against. Parents should be free to make their own choices about what they show to their children.

Out of curiosity on this particular aspect...if there was no censorship of swearing...allowing all TV shows to have swearing etc...how then can a parent 'choose' which shows to allow their children to watch? (because all shows have swearing, there is no longer any choice left to watch a show without swearing.)

Allowing swearing on TV wouldn't mean that every TV show would have swearing in it. Broadcasters would be free to make swear-free shows, and they probably still would. If parents wanted their children to see swear-free kids TV shows then broadcasters would be bound to meet this demand (for fear of losing viewrs), so there'd be plenty of swearless children's TV. They could still put warnings at the beginnings of shows - "this program contains strong language" - as they do now. But the difference would be that you wouldn't have to stay up until the middle of the night to see certain TV programs just because of the language used in them.

So parents would still have a choice. But hopefully more parents would choose not to hide their children from adult language. I don't believe that swearing is actually harmful or wrong, so I don't see why, say, a TV drama which realistically depicts people swearing should only be shown late at night. Hopefully parents would come to realise that swearing is a great way to use language (especially when swear words are saved for occasions of real anger or outrage, or for comedic value), and that teaching their children to swear properly is better than teaching them not to swear.

0 Replies

i think its funny how penis is totally acceptable, but if u say cock people are all like WTF DID HE SAY??!?!?!?!?!? OMFGZ CALL THE POLEECE!

0 Replies

Is censorship ever justified?
good posting. Censorship can be justified. I can remember as a child
I saw on the British news a dead man in Northern Ireland lying half covered with a sheet on. I had nightmares.
Children should be protected from the excesses of adult life such as pornography, visuals of drug taking and of violent crime.
But governments and the media trying to censor the Freedom of speech of individuals is reprehensible. It happens in Wales, the economic weakling of the UK. The Welsh assembly in alliance with the national newspaper (and TV) censor anything which is detrimental to Wales. A man on Youtube raging at the plight of the poor in front of the government is given no airtime whatsoever because foreign investors who may be watching may not set up business in Wales. The only airtime this guy gets is posting on youtube in which I gained knowledge of his cause.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
But that wouldn't stop parents 'censoring' what their children read, hear or see, and nor should it. Perhaps it's just censorship laws that I am against. Parents should be free to make their own choices about what they show to their children.

Out of curiosity on this particular aspect...if there was no censorship of swearing...allowing all TV shows to have swearing etc...how then can a parent 'choose' which shows to allow their children to watch? (because all shows have swearing, there is no longer any choice left to watch a show without swearing.)

Children shud be,
and r,
free to overrule their parents' decisions
as to what those childrent choose to observe.
David

0 Replies

Quote:

Children shud be,
and r,
free to overrule their parents' decisions
as to what those childrent choose to observe.
David

You only need to watch Super Nanny to know how well that would work.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Children shud be,
and r,
free to overrule their parents' decisions
as to what those childrent choose to observe.
David

You only need to watch Super Nanny to know how well that would work.

During my own childhood
many decades ago, I did not allow anyone to control my choice of reading.
David

0 Replies

You are an unusual person David.

...of course...everyone could be said to be unusual Shocked

0 Replies

Yes.
My mother told me repeatedly:
" David, u r like someone from another planet.
Other people don 't act like u " in reference to my ideosyncratic preferences.

0 Replies

i agree, my parents are two of the most idiotic people i know.

0 Replies