Discussion»Questions»Communication» Some censorship is beneficial especially with regard to protecting children. Where should we draw the line? Who decides?
Some censorship is beneficial especially with regard to protecting children. Where should we draw the line? Who decides?
Adults should decide what they want to read/hear/see. Children have parents to protect them from things they are not old enough to process. What part does/should Government play in controlling access to information? Why?
Hard one ... I don't think there's an answer that is universal. Most kids will find stuff despite censorship..... There are things I don't think adults should have access to... Snuff movies and real violence against innocent victims ... Then we can move on to extreme political movements... Do you allow neo Nazis to promote a new Reich? And notice ... I haven't even touched on sex yet ... Well, true within the question anyway :)
The only types of media that I really think should be censored by the government and made illegal are things where there was clear abuse and victimization of others for the sole purpose of depicting it in media. Rape, snuff, child porn type of stuff.
Oz brings up extreme political movement media yet I don't think even that should be censored. It doesn't stop the ideology and I don't think there should be any restrictions on voice or philosophy regardless how vile and disgusting it is. Freedom of speech trumps it in terms of social importance. It gives the government too much power and precedent to silence any kind of thought if it someday so chooses. It also creates a boondoggle for those trying to depict it for other reasons than to promote it. For those reasons I oppose it. Not because I actually support their cause.
As for the argument " Think about the children?" Phooey, that is a morality crusader plea on peoples emotions and, to me, a clear sign of a faulty measure not based on sound reason. It's a sales pitch for political snake oil. Suggesting one side doesn't care about children if they don't convert.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 6, 2016 4:34 AM MST
Glis ... U raise interesting points re the political side of things ... I don't know if I'm right or not in what I said ...I think there are viewpoints only maybe .... What concerns me about the political side of things is not being under control they can lie and get away with it ... And in lying pull those less educated into their particular fold ... If happened in Germany ... And most recently in your country ... One part of me agrees with what you say, yet another part looks at the reality of uncontrolled and unbalanced information ... I don't have an answer ... But I do have concerns
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 6, 2016 4:51 AM MST
It's all gravy dear. It's always worth having the dialogue. I wasn't trying to belittle your post.
I think you touched on a deeper problem that I believe is more important in addressing though. "And in lying pull those less educated into their particular fold." I don't see it as much as a need to limit speech, as much as a clear sign we need better education in reason and logic. Otherwise the ideology will still exist just in quiet and harder to see numbers. Also if the vile side isn't allowed to speak their spew, no dialogue to refute them one on one can really happen. It limits us all in reality IMHO. Now if you are spewing some BS like " Do your duty and go kill a faggot and hang a negro". That's a direct call to commit violence and is a little different. I think anyways. You're not putting forth an idea which i think is what free speech is really all about. You're plotting a crime which is different. I also tend to see that suppressing the voice of a fringe group, especially one based on hate and anger, only solidifies their convictions to the cause by creating a persecution complex. In a strong way it reinforces them to believe they hold a truth and are "correct" in their perceptions of being targeted or threatened.
I see your point about Trump. I don't see good things happening with him. However I think it's a tad premature to compare him to Hitler as of yet. The whole "they're Nazis and He's the new Hitler" has been being thrown around for decades and against various people on both sides of the political isle. While I don't condone Trumps motives, planned actions, or ideas. I don't think I'm ready to make that comparison yer and honestly, I don't know if a proper comparison to Hitler and the Nazis can ever be properly applied except retroactively. Nor do I believe all vile and fear mongering hate politics are necessarily being a Nazi. I think that pigeon holes all vile politics into too broad a blanket and lessens our ability to identify and deal with totalitarian movements. As if each one isn't unique and there isn't unique ways each needs to be handled.
Sorry Glis ... I didn't explain very well, and that's my fault ... And you didn't belittle my post ... They are good points you raised! Just to be clear, I'm not comparing trump and Hitler ... I'm comparing what happens when one side, of both sides, are allowed to lie to advance they're particular cause ... With Hitler it was the Jews, the communists and Versailles .... With trump it was everyone else ... If either one had been controlled through some mechanism of pricing what they say, then I think things would have been very different in both cases. And yes ... Education is the key ... The ability to think critically ... To hear the alarm bell go off in your mind ... To say to yourself "that doesn't sound right". I fear that it's intentional that critical thinking is being bred out of the general population .... Have you ever seen one or two sheep dogs herding a flock that is going to be fleeced?
I gotcha. Like you, I myself don't have the concrete answer. If there even is one. As I said before it's an important dialogue and both viewpoints need to be said and listened to. Sadly it doesn't happen that way enough and usually consist of two sides just hurling rhetoric and buzzwords at each other without trying to see the points and issues being raised by each other. Just like everything else I suppose. >sigh<
"Think about the children" is anathema to you. Can you explain why? You are quite dismissive and insulting, even condescending. You don't think children need to be protected from things they aren't old enough to intellectually or emotionally handle? I disagree with everything you wrote in the final paragraph so either we are at odds on this or I am missing your point. This is your chance to tell me which it is. Thank you for your reply Glis . Why don't you read your last paragraph again and think about how you might have conveyed the same information without being insulting? What could it hurt?
No I can't really Rosie. To be fair I find many of your replies to me extremely insulting to me as well. Ones specifically targeted to me as an individual. Sorry you see it as directly insulting you the person or that it was specifically directed at you and not a political slogan. Yet that is exactly how I see that methodology. It's not a sound argument for something and only denigrates the other viewpoint by trying to label them as indifferent to children's well being. It's spurious. It couldn't be farther from the truth though. Of course we care about children and their well being. However they too will become adults someday and having a world where their desires, preferred lives, and entertainment are going to be limited and them shamed for it too. it really isn't doing them a service because of that. Laws who's only basis is " children might see it" or " children might get their hands on it and hurt themselves" is legislating out the responsibility of the caretakers of them. I never seen the value in limiting what adults do inn their own privacy or lives in order to protect children from hypothetical " What if's?" It's too heavy handed and just makes criminals out of ordinary people just trying to live their lives. Get rid of porn and adult novelty shops because a kid MIGHT see that. You can't have that because an unsupervised child MIGHT someday get a handle on it and hurt themselves. It's way too much " what if?". Now when it comes down to marketing lead painted toys to children or something of that nature that's a different story. Yet, limiting adult products or activities because a small number of children, my inadvertently see or handle it based on some What if? possibility. Then we are walking on a dangerous and problematic path. It's no different than the BS argument of " If it saves one life then it was all worth it!". Well i hate to break it to people but that's crap. Limiting the entire populations choices and freedom to choose just to protect one person ( or even a very small percentage) is not worth it. that is not worth decreasing the quality of life for millions and millions for hundreds and hundreds. Bad things happen, that's life. Knee jerk reactions wont fix that and don't make life better.
I must thank you Rosie. I been wanting to find a place to post this and you made two threads that this relates. This is a prime example of the type of A**hole who's freedom of speech I struggle to support. Yet despite all my reservations to him and my disdain for his actions and words, I do support him having a right to say this. However I totally support yours and anyone else right to B**** slap this fool if he gets in your face with this nonsense.
I saw this not too long ago and rarely have I felt such disgust and hatred for someone.
Benedict Arnold 