Debate Should content ever be banned?

[VisionofMilotic]

I would say I am fairly liberal in my views of civil liberties. I don't think material should be banned from viewing or reading, no matter how controversial or graphic. If you don't like it you can ignore it, you can debate and criticize it, satirize it, protest it but I think the government should only prohibit explicit criminal activity from being circulated like threatening violence, and that's pretty much how it's supposed to go under US law.

Just so we are on the same page, censorship is different from banning. An example of the former is a television network not including nudity, language or violence in their program, or doing so with a warning or recommended age restriction. A ban would mean this content is not accessible to the general public, i.e copies of the movie being pulled from shelves.

You could approve of censorship and not a ban, you could approve of both, or disapprove of both.

Where do you stand on banned material? Is there ever a situation where you think it could be appropriate to do?

If you vote in the poll, only you can see your vote. It's private.

 

[headspace]

There are certainly times when banning material from ever being viewed by the general public is alright to me, but only the most extreme and obscene things like child porn and thats pretty much it, other than that I think people should have their rights to view whatever if they want to. That's for them to decide and not any power should restrict them assuming they're adults. Kids shouldn't be viewing some stuff they do today.

 

[Palamon]

The only thing I truly think should be banned are the showing of genitals w/out censorship and any form of child pornography. I suppose, extremely racist stuff, too, should be banned. Example: Song of the South. Keep that banned. People are mad that isn't going on Disney+, but it really shouldn't.

But, I understand that cultures are different in what they allow. I do think it's ridiculous that some countries ban episodes of stuff because they show LGBT+ couples in them (which I disagree with), but I can't change the views of other cultures. It's unfortunate in many ways some countries are still like that.

But, yeah, all I really think needs to be banned is child pornography and grossly racist things. But, I guess, as time evolves, these things will go away. I would say homophobic/transphobic stuff (stuff that's purposely made to be this way) should be banned, too, but I don't think that's gonna happen, unfortunately. I don't think all controversial things should be banned, though. Just stuff like Huckleberry Finn and The Song of the South. I suppose, though, content warnings can definitely help, though, but with especially old stuff like that are not gonna get those revised content warnings.

 

[pkmin3033]

Honestly I'm not sure what difference it makes, really - the nature of the internet makes it impossible to really ban anything - you can restrict, censor, and outrid forbid people from possessing certain content, but you can't really STOP them from getting it if they're determined, and there's no way to feasibly enforce it either...at least, not without violating basic human rights. Even then I'm not sure it could be done. Ask China how they're doing with stopping VPNs.

That doesn't mean governments shouldn't TRY I suppose...whilst I'm fairly open-minded, there are the obvious things which are utterly reprehensible and depraved no matter how amoral you are, and people should not be creating or possessing these things. Some things you can't really censor, and those are the sorts of things that should be banned, with very hefty penalties if you're caught in possession of them. But controversial and graphic material? No, I don't think so. Adults can ignore them, and parents need to take responsibility for their children rather than expect the government to do it for them.

 

[gimmepie]

Outside of very extreme circumstances, nothing should be banned.

 

[VisionofMilotic]

Child pornography I would place in the category of making death threats as obviously criminal, someone underage is being abused in that circumstance, and any participation is, and should be, outlawed. These are individuals who couldn't give consent, so the law has to protect them. Any content related to a crime such as this, like black market goods poached from an endangered animal or a snuff film should be seized, and the creator and a person knowingly possessing it needs to be prosecuted.

Now aside from content with implications of real physical harm like that, which the law usually already is going to make exceptions to, I am still in the camp of not banning.

I would not patronize a business that displayed a Confederate flag for instance. I don't think it's the place of the government to ban it's possession, and forcibly remove it from someone's home however. Same with burning American flag. They may be inflammatory gestures like giving the middle finger, but causing offense isn't enough reason I think to prohibit someone from being able to obtain material. I feel the same way with pornography if it's viewed by adults and features other consenting adults, no matter how sickened I may be personally, I try not to look at the law through my own personal emotions.

 

[Joey Montag]

Yes, but only in the most extreme forms of content, as mentioned above.
Banning of controversial ideas, on the other hand, is harmful and probably leads to polarization of thought as we've increasingly been seeing since the 2010s.

To shape a healthy mind of a society, I think what's more important than banning thoughts and images, is to heavily promote ideals. Instead of banning homophobia, why not show healthy male-male and female-female relationships throughout the media? People are like computers... feed us the ideas and we internalize it. Nobody is born a homophobe, racist, etc.