Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Censorship

feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 1:21:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a debate I had on here not so long ago. http://www.debate.org... Feel free to vote as it has been mildly bombed but I'm fishing for opinions here rather than votes.

I oppose almost all forms of censorship, desire a free press etc. but I do think it is important to acknowledge that, in certain extreme circumstances, censorship is appropriate and necessary.

I know that a lot of people here, (perhaps a lot of Americans generally), have such a deep-rooted hatred of the concept of censorship that they will instinctively reject the idea of it. But when you really consider it, I think almost all of us advocate some forms of censorship. Child porn is perhaps the most obvious example.

Free speech is important and I think people have every right to express opinions that I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed. This would cover things like inciting violence from a public platform, direct threats to vulnerable people, bearing false witness and hoax bomb threats.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 1:42:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In fact, Americans censor a lot more than Europeans, even us prudish Brits, at least where sex and nudity are concerned.

Nudity on public beaches and in spa resorts is not usually permitted and graphic sex on TV is very heavily prescribed.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:03:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 1:21:21 PM, feverish wrote:
This is a debate I had on here not so long ago. http://www.debate.org... Feel free to vote as it has been mildly bombed but I'm fishing for opinions here rather than votes.

I'm against it most of the time.

I oppose almost all forms of censorship, desire a free press etc. but I do think it is important to acknowledge that, in certain extreme circumstances, censorship is appropriate and necessary.

Nah I just see it is the right of the owner of whatever place. If I don't want people to talk about eating meat in my house I can ban them. They still have that freedom elsewhere. Publicly, very little should be censored. If a tv channel doesn't want bad words they don't have to allow them. If another does they should be allowed to allow them, without it being a big deal and saying you have to be like 14 because there's bad words (lol at that concept anyway)

I know that a lot of people here, (perhaps a lot of Americans generally), have such a deep-rooted hatred of the concept of censorship that they will instinctively reject the idea of it. But when you really consider it, I think almost all of us advocate some forms of censorship. Child porn is perhaps the most obvious example.

Child porn shouldn't be censored. It should be illegal to create or distribute. And I'm talking real children, not cartoons or 17 year olds. Talking real 6 year olds and stuff.

Free speech is important and I think people have every right to express opinions that I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed.

That's diff than censorship too.
It might really inflict harm on people if I say that christians are huge hypocrites and preach about hell, and how bad gays non christians, ect are but never bother to live by anything jesus ever said. That might really damage someone emotionally or mentally. I shouldn't have to censor myself, they just shouldn't have talked to me.
Got a problem with someone, ignore them, block them out, get a restraining order whatever you want.

This would cover things like inciting violence from a public platform, direct threats to vulnerable people, bearing false witness and hoax bomb threats.

ahhh that's the only one that matters and that one shouldn't so much be censored as taken as evidence for (most likely) conspiracy to cause harm.
Them existing shouldn't be censored.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:11:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 1:21:21 PM, feverish wrote:

I know that a lot of people here, (perhaps a lot of Americans generally), have such a deep-rooted hatred of the concept of censorship that they will instinctively reject the idea of it. But when you really consider it, I think almost all of us advocate some forms of censorship. Child porn is perhaps the most obvious example.:

But you're forgetting a critical element here. Child pornography is a crime. The idea is that speech itself shouldn't be a crime, but communicating actions to affect an actual crime is. The idea in favor of censorship is to silence dissenting opinions. That's what it means to not accept censorship. It doesn't mean that everything under the sun is now permissible because of lax censorship laws.

Free speech is important and I think people have every right to express opinions that I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed.:

Then I guess it is fortunate for you that it isn't allowed. You still cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, and you still cannot make threats against another person's life and be covered under free speech. See: Clear and Present Danger for details.

The kind of censorship we are talking about is burying negative publicity or silencing dissenting opinions. A few years ago, Google tried to team up with China. And why not? They have a huge burgeoning economy. It seems like a great investment. The provision was that Google had to conform to China's censorship laws. If a user typed in "Tiannemen Square," it had to show benign images of the actual place. It could not show anything relating to the massacre, or images of "Tank Man," or anything negative about the oppressive and repressive Chinese government.

Because of this, I boycotted Google and urged everyone else to do the same. That boycott ultimately led Google to relent, and no government interference was necessary. They finally told China that they weren't going to adopt their censorship, even at the cost of billions of dollars. The Great Firewall of China is still up, especially with the Chinese search engine, Baidu, but fissures in the wall are appearing.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:14:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:11:56 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/19/2011 1:21:21 PM, feverish wrote:

I know that a lot of people here, (perhaps a lot of Americans generally), have such a deep-rooted hatred of the concept of censorship that they will instinctively reject the idea of it. But when you really consider it, I think almost all of us advocate some forms of censorship. Child porn is perhaps the most obvious example.:

But you're forgetting a critical element here. Child pornography is a crime. The idea is that speech itself shouldn't be a crime, but communicating actions to affect an actual crime is. The idea in favor of censorship is to silence dissenting opinions. That's what it means to not accept censorship. It doesn't mean that everything under the sun is now permissible because of lax censorship laws.

Free speech is important and I think people have every right to express opinions that I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed.:

Then I guess it is fortunate for you that it isn't allowed. You still cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, and you still cannot make threats against another person's life and be covered under free speech. See: Clear and Present Danger for details.

The kind of censorship we are talking about is burying negative publicity or silencing dissenting opinions. A few years ago, Google tried to team up with China. And why not? They have a huge burgeoning economy. It seems like a great investment. The provision was that Google had to conform to China's censorship laws. If a user typed in "Tiannemen Square," it had to show benign images of the actual place. It could not show anything relating to the massacre, or images of "Tank Man," or anything negative about the oppressive and repressive Chinese government.

Because of this, I boycotted Google and urged everyone else to do the same. That boycott ultimately led Google to relent, and no government interference was necessary. They finally told China that they weren't going to adopt their censorship, even at the cost of billions of dollars. The Great Firewall of China is still up, especially with the Chinese search engine, Baidu, but fissures in the wall are appearing.

Agree completely and probably got the point across much better than I
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:14:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 1:42:43 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
In fact, Americans censor a lot more than Europeans, even us prudish Brits, at least where sex and nudity are concerned.:

In general, that's very true. I cannot stand the FCC. It's a very simple solution to the dilemma. Let parents control the censorship in their household. Cable companies have settings to do just this, because it's a good investment for them to have.

Nudity on public beaches and in spa resorts is not usually permitted and graphic sex on TV is very heavily prescribed.:

There are only a handful of nude beaches in the United States. On Miami Beach, women are allowed to go topless if they want. In San Diego, there are two secluded beaches devoted to nudity.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:21:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Agree completely and probably got the point across much better than I:

Thanks, babe ;)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:26:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 1:21:21 PM, feverish wrote:
I know that a lot of people here, (perhaps a lot of Americans generally), have such a deep-rooted hatred of the concept of censorship that they will instinctively reject the idea of it. But when you really consider it, I think almost all of us advocate some forms of censorship. Child porn is perhaps the most obvious example.
Lol. Good thing you put in the almost.

I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed. This would cover things like inciting violence from a public platform, direct threats to vulnerable people, bearing false witness and hoax bomb threats.
That's not the speech you're banning but fundamentally an action brigaded with the speech.
though mere incitement still might not be practical to stop.

Child porn shouldn't be censored. It should be illegal to create or distribute
That's censorship.

;In fact, Americans censor a lot more than Europeans, even us prudish Brits, at least where sex and nudity are concerned.
Nudity on public beaches and in spa resorts is not usually permitted and graphic sex on TV is very heavily prescribed.
Yes, the US censors some based on venue, and that is wrong. However, it is less harmful than censoring something EVERYWHERE. Which the British due much more often than the US. It censors so called "Extreme pornography" everywhere (such as faux-necro, faux-rape, bestiality, potentially even just BDSM) and, worse, has a filter set up to do so.
It also treats cartoons as "child porn."

That's just the sexual stuff cause that's all you mentioned. Politicallly... libel laws put the burden of proof on the defense, sympathy with Ireland was illegal to broadcast until 1994, hate speech laws....
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:28:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:14:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/19/2011 1:42:43 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
In fact, Americans censor a lot more than Europeans, even us prudish Brits, at least where sex and nudity are concerned.:

In general, that's very true. I cannot stand the FCC. It's a very simple solution to the dilemma. Let parents control the censorship in their household. Cable companies have settings to do just this, because it's a good investment for them to have.
As far as I know the FCC is not binding on cable television.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:33:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:03:31 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 2/19/2011 1:21:21 PM, feverish wrote:

I oppose almost all forms of censorship, desire a free press etc. but I do think it is important to acknowledge that, in certain extreme circumstances, censorship is appropriate and necessary.

Nah I just see it is the right of the owner of whatever place. If I don't want people to talk about eating meat in my house I can ban them. They still have that freedom elsewhere.

Agreed.

Publicly, very little should be censored.

So some stuff should?

If a tv channel doesn't want bad words they don't have to allow them. If another does they should be allowed to allow them, without it being a big deal and saying you have to be like 14 because there's bad words (lol at that concept anyway)

Yeah, I agree but what about a more extreme example like kids going to adult porn cinemas and seeing really disturbing stuff?

Child porn shouldn't be censored. It should be illegal to create or distribute.

What's the difference between censoring something and banning distribution of it?

Free speech is important and I think people have every right to express opinions that I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed.

That's diff than censorship too.

Yeah, a little, but it's the related issue of free speech.

It might really inflict harm on people if I say that christians are huge hypocrites and preach about hell, and how bad gays non christians, ect are but never bother to live by anything jesus ever said. That might really damage someone emotionally or mentally. I shouldn't have to censor myself, they just shouldn't have talked to me.

I wouldn't consider challenging someone's world view or belief system to be causing direct harm.

This would cover things like inciting violence from a public platform, direct threats to vulnerable people, bearing false witness and hoax bomb threats.

ahhh that's the only one that matters and that one shouldn't so much be censored as taken as evidence for (most likely) conspiracy to cause harm.
Them existing shouldn't be censored.

If you're punishing people for the words they say, then it's not really free speech is it?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:36:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:28:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/19/2011 2:14:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/19/2011 1:42:43 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
In fact, Americans censor a lot more than Europeans, even us prudish Brits, at least where sex and nudity are concerned.:

In general, that's very true. I cannot stand the FCC. It's a very simple solution to the dilemma. Let parents control the censorship in their household. Cable companies have settings to do just this, because it's a good investment for them to have.
As far as I know the FCC is not binding on cable television.:

They control the content of network television though. My point was that cable provides you the ability to censor content in your home for the sake of young children you don't want exposed to certain things.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:42:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:11:56 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/19/2011 1:21:21 PM, feverish wrote:

Child porn is perhaps the most obvious example.:

But you're forgetting a critical element here. Child pornography is a crime.

Child pornograprhy is data. Making it is a crime and since distributing the data is also a crime, it is censored material.

The idea is that speech itself shouldn't be a crime, but communicating actions to affect an actual crime is. The idea in favor of censorship is to silence dissenting opinions. That's what it means to not accept censorship. It doesn't mean that everything under the sun is now permissible because of lax censorship laws.

I guess it's a semantical thing and I'm thinking in very literal terms of banning any stuff and prohibiting any speech as being censorship.

Free speech is important and I think people have every right to express opinions that I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed.:

Then I guess it is fortunate for you that it isn't allowed. You still cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, and you still cannot make threats against another person's life and be covered under free speech. See: Clear and Present Danger for details.

The kind of censorship we are talking about is burying negative publicity or silencing dissenting opinions. A few years ago, Google tried to team up with China. And why not? They have a huge burgeoning economy. It seems like a great investment. The provision was that Google had to conform to China's censorship laws. If a user typed in "Tiannemen Square," it had to show benign images of the actual place. It could not show anything relating to the massacre, or images of "Tank Man," or anything negative about the oppressive and repressive Chinese government.

Because of this, I boycotted Google and urged everyone else to do the same. That boycott ultimately led Google to relent, and no government interference was necessary. They finally told China that they weren't going to adopt their censorship, even at the cost of billions of dollars. The Great Firewall of China is still up, especially with the Chinese search engine, Baidu, but fissures in the wall are appearing.

Yeah, I'm totally in agreement about allowing dissenting opinions that aren't causing direct harm.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:49:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:26:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/19/2011 1:21:21 PM, feverish wrote:
I know that a lot of people here, (perhaps a lot of Americans generally), have such a deep-rooted hatred of the concept of censorship that they will instinctively reject the idea of it. But when you really consider it, I think almost all of us advocate some forms of censorship. Child porn is perhaps the most obvious example.
Lol. Good thing you put in the almost.

He he, I thought of you when I wrote that actually.

I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed. This would cover things like inciting violence from a public platform, direct threats to vulnerable people, bearing false witness and hoax bomb threats.
That's not the speech you're banning but fundamentally an action brigaded with the speech.

Eh? The actions would consist of speech though, unless you're a really good mime artist.

though mere incitement still might not be practical to stop.

Not always practical but sometimes desirable imo.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:53:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hate speech that causes direct harm should be banned. I'm not talking something like somebody saying "blacks should go back to being slaves" without it meaning much(unless they actually do go and get soe blacks to force them to be slaves), but something like "all blacks should be killed" and then somebody goes out and kills blacks. In fact, any speech preaching racial incited violence should obviously be banned.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:56:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:33:19 PM, feverish wrote:

Publicly, very little should be censored.

So some stuff should?

Not any I can think of.

If a tv channel doesn't want bad words they don't have to allow them. If another does they should be allowed to allow them, without it being a big deal and saying you have to be like 14 because there's bad words (lol at that concept anyway)

Yeah, I agree but what about a more extreme example like kids going to adult porn cinemas and seeing really disturbing stuff?

Natural consequences of going there.

Child porn shouldn't be censored. It should be illegal to create or distribute.

What's the difference between censoring something and banning distribution of it?

Censoring it allows it, but filtered. Banning distribution of it keeps people from being harmed.

Free speech is important and I think people have every right to express opinions that I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed.

That's diff than censorship too.

Yeah, a little, but it's the related issue of free speech.

People should be free to say whatever they want. Just as we should be allowed to respond how we wish.
Take westboro. They come onto private property then it could very well be the rule of the land "trespassers will be killed" take laws out of it, less harm will be caused.
Speech and such is indirect, it takes you processing, and dealing with it however for it to be harmful.

If I break up with my bf, it might cause a lot of haarm, and he might kill himself.I should still be allowed that choice. (even tho I wont use it nice to have that freedom)

It might really inflict harm on people if I say that christians are huge hypocrites and preach about hell, and how bad gays non christians, ect are but never bother to live by anything jesus ever said. That might really damage someone emotionally or mentally. I shouldn't have to censor myself, they just shouldn't have talked to me.

I wouldn't consider challenging someone's world view or belief system to be causing direct harm.

Then we agree on the above statement of indirect harm.

This would cover things like inciting violence from a public platform, direct threats to vulnerable people, bearing false witness and hoax bomb threats.

ahhh that's the only one that matters and that one shouldn't so much be censored as taken as evidence for (most likely) conspiracy to cause harm.
Them existing shouldn't be censored.

If you're punishing people for the words they say, then it's not really free speech is it?

Not the words they say, the threat they give.
If someone is aiming a gun at you you have the right to shoot them.
Its not killing them for having a gun, its killing the for the threat.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 3:00:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As for the child porn issue, it depends on what you define child porn as. For some people, such as myself it's porn featuring anybody under the legal age where you're considered an adult. For others, it's porn featuring literally children. Also, should cartoons and erotica novels featuring fictional children be allowed? I don't see much harm in that as long as real children weren't used in order to create the characters in there.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 3:23:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 3:00:10 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
As for the child porn issue, it depends on what you define child porn as. For some people, such as myself it's porn featuring anybody under the legal age where you're considered an adult. For others, it's porn featuring literally children. Also, should cartoons and erotica novels featuring fictional children be allowed? I don't see much harm in that as long as real children weren't used in order to create the characters in there.

Agreed. I think anything prepubescent should be illegal.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 3:24:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
**assuming the children are real. Fake children (cartoons or child looking dolls shouldn't be for example)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 3:25:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 3:24:23 PM, lovelife wrote:
**assuming the children are real. Fake children (cartoons or child looking dolls shouldn't be for example)

Yea, drawing cartoon child to use in animated porn is fine as long as real children weren't used as models or whatever.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 3:31:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Child pornograprhy is data. Making it is a crime and since distributing the data is also a crime, it is censored material.:

Because of the crime of statutory rape. The two are not mutually exclusive. Just because regular porn and child porn use the same medium doesn't negate the crime of statutory rape.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:57:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:49:06 PM, feverish wrote:
He he, I thought of you when I wrote that actually.

I personally find abominable, however once they cross the line of inflicting harm it should not be allowed. This would cover things like inciting violence from a public platform, direct threats to vulnerable people, bearing false witness and hoax bomb threats.
That's not the speech you're banning but fundamentally an action brigaded with the speech.

Eh? The actions would consist of speech though, unless you're a really good mime artist.
When we speak in legal terminology, speech does not merely mean "Sound produced with vocal cords." It protects, among other things, flag burning. What is protected is the expression of something, an idea, an emotion. What is not protected is the false promise of an action (since you grant title to it and then withhold the thing that another has title to), or the promise of any other action that is initial force, or words that participate in an action (for example, words that constitute the masterminding of a conspiracy to murder). That is: "This is" is protected. "This ought to be" is protected. "This shall be" is protected on other grounds if true and nonharmful, but not protected if false or harmful.


though mere incitement still might not be practical to stop.

Not always practical but sometimes desirable imo.
Perhaps. I really don't see the use, but I would not condemn a government for nothing more than banning incitement, as long as abstract advocacy was protected.

Hate speech that causes direct harm should be banned. I'm not talking something like somebody saying "blacks should go back to being slaves" without it meaning much(unless they actually do go and get soe blacks to force them to be slaves), but something like "all blacks should be killed" and then somebody goes out and kills blacks
That isn't "Causing direct harm." It's mere abstract advocacy. To ban it and be consistent, you would effectively have to be open to banning all political speech of those you disagree with. For it all abstractly advocates force. The fact that someone is talking about race is no excuse to suspend the use of reason.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:43:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is lamentable that one man's free speech is another man's censorship....
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:45:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:43:17 PM, MarquisX wrote:
It is lamentable that one man's free speech is another man's censorship....

That is true. Censorship can be very subjective. For example, the book Mein Kampf is banned in most European countries. To most people that's probably seen as a good thing, but to a Neo-Nazi it would be censorship.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:05:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:45:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:43:17 PM, MarquisX wrote:
It is lamentable that one man's free speech is another man's censorship....

That is true. Censorship can be very subjective. For example, the book Mein Kampf is banned in most European countries. To most people that's probably seen as a good thing, but to a Neo-Nazi it would be censorship.

To who the hell is that free speech, regardless of its supposed status as a good thing?
That's like saying one man's murder is another man's pacifism. That's not how it works.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 9:21:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The censorship of child pornography is intended to protect children by inhibiting the market for the material. Suppose someone produces child porn and is arrested and punished for having done so. If the material itself is not censored, then it could continue to be sold and distributed.

The legal status of computer generated or artist-made child pornography is somewhat in doubt in the United States, but generally it's legal. Tokyo recently banned anime showing anything that appears to be underage sex; that's causing quite an uproar in Japan. Anime characters are typically drawn as being ambiguous with respect to age; characters look mature except for large eyes that suggest youth.

Most of Europe bans whatever the government deems as hate speech, including holocaust denial. That seems to me much more significant than sex-related material.

News outlets typically censor gore from traffic accidents, crime scenes, and natural disasters. No one seems to mind that kind of censorship.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 9:25:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
News outlets typically censor
News outlets don't censor, they just choose not to publish. Censorship involves force.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 10:02:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 9:25:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
News outlets typically censor
News outlets don't censor, they just choose not to publish. Censorship involves force.

Agreed.

The Europe thing is way too far tho. Hell half the time "Holocaust deniers" just think that the numbers are stretched. So all that's doing is blocking you from having your ow opinion. INHO its comparable to killing/imprisoning everyone who believes in anarchy (even if they follow all laws)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 10:06:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 10:02:55 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 2/20/2011 9:25:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
News outlets typically censor
News outlets don't censor, they just choose not to publish. Censorship involves force.

Agreed.

The Europe thing is way too far tho. Hell half the time "Holocaust deniers" just think that the numbers are stretched. So all that's doing is blocking you from having your ow opinion. INHO its comparable to killing/imprisoning everyone who believes in anarchy (even if they follow all laws)

What about the actual holocaust deniers who deny it outright?