When is censorship appropriate or justified?

[Her]

Take the title question as you will - government censorship, protesting offensive material in media, cases like the David Furnish media blackout, etc. I don't want to put much restriction on the topic.

 

[Esper]

When providing the information would cause immediate harm. Not moral harm, but physical harm and bodily injury. It's also important for the privacy of individuals. For instance: Nude photos of people who have not consented to having their photos shown should be censored and not allowed in public.

 

[Somewhere_]

I dont care how offensive it is. Nothing should ever be censored. Its wrong.

 

[Her]

I dont care how offensive it is. Nothing should ever be censored. Its wrong.

But why have you come to this conclusion? What is your reasoning? What makes censorship, of any kind, wrong?

 

[Somewhere_]

But why have you come to this conclusion? What is your reasoning? What makes censorship, of any kind, wrong?

Long explanation.

There are two kinds of censorship: moral and immoral.

Moral: Self-censorship. For example, I own a restaurant (not really) and i will kick anyone out who brings a tablet or laptop or something of that nature and watches porn on it, and showing the screen to other customers. Another example would be if I do not buy history books, and do not ever read them or bring them into my home. And if I invite others into my home, I tell them not to bring history books. Or a publication company not wanting to publish a book with certain bad language, or blocking out the words in printing.

Immoral: History books are banned no matter what, whether by government or some gang (who steals all history books and burns them). Basically, this type of censorship is an initiation of force: it says that if you own a history book, porn, or whatever, you will be thrown in jail and your property (the book, flash drive with porn, etc) seized. Or whatever the punishment may be.

I hope I explained that well enough. I sort of hurried because im on a break from studying, but whatever. Its the shortest why I can explain it without getting deep into nonaggression and stuff.

You will probably have a question about moral censorship if its okay to initiate force on individual with a history book on my property, but that is probably better reserved for visitor messages. :D

 

[Livewire]

Sorry you don't have a right to induce or help abett bodily harm or injury on somebody else, we have "clear and present danger" clauses when it comes to speech and expressing speech and they're plenty appropriate.

 

[gimmepie]

I dont care how offensive it is. Nothing should ever be censored. Its wrong.

I mean, I am certainly against things like excessive censorship or censorship based on morality. I am definitely against the censorship of historical information. However, I think that in cases where censorship is preventing the populace from coming to harm it is probably justified just as Esper and Live said.

 

[Elysieum]

I think we've entered an age of overprotecting children. I look at the kind of films that are produced specifically for young children today, and I cringe. Sappy, simpering 3D animations of a bunch of wacky animals with no real substance.

Giving children adult themes to consider is incredibly useful for their development, I feel. The Harry Potter series is a good example of this. It has an intermingling of wonder, danger, death, friendship and love.

We need to stop underestimating young minds. Puritanism and censorship can bring harm in their own way.

 

[gimmepie]

I think we've entered an age of overprotecting children. I look at the kind of films that are produced specifically for young children today, and I cringe. Sappy, simpering 3D animations of a bunch of wacky animals with no real substance.

Giving children adult themes to consider is incredibly useful for their development, I feel. The Harry Potter series is a good example of this. It has an intermingling of wonder, danger, death, friendship and love.

We need to stop underestimating young minds. Puritanism and censorship can bring harm in their own way.

I would argue that a lot of films are dong the opposite. Take a look at films like Inside Out and Zootopia, they draw focus to more important/mature issues whilst still being targeted at children. I think that's a great way to handle things. I also don't think that you can reference the Harry Potter films as "children movies". The first one or two sure, but it's a rather unique franchise because it grew darker and more mature alongside a maturing fanbase.

Anyway, I don't think people making childish movies for children really constitutes censorship in the traditional sense to be honest. Whether or not it's healthy for development is debatable but it's not like the film industry is covering things up to hide them from children. If anything in the film industry is censorship it's the classification system and even then it's debatable.

 

[Somewhere_]

Sorry you don't have a right to induce or help abett bodily harm or injury on somebody else, we have "clear and present danger" clauses when it comes to speech and expressing speech and they're plenty appropriate.

Threatening harm is also bad. Its like if I pulled out a gun and pointed at someone saying I will shoot them without any intention of doing so. What will happen? Ill be arrested and most likely jailed because I cannot prove my intentions. That is totally understandable.

So in this sense, my threatening actions are not exactly the same thing as free speech. Its like saying I am not free if I cannot murder others or steal from them.

 

[Esper]

I wonder how people think of the idea of censorship to prevent potential danger. Like, for instance a news media blackout about something dangerous to prevent a panic. The dangerous thing is obviously dangerous and not telling people could put them at risk, but a panic could potentially be much worse. What's the right thing to do then?

 

[Palamon]

I'm only okay with censorship if it's material you wouldn't show a child. I'm not talking about all that gross "white-washing" censorship (that's disgusting), but censoring things like alcohol and drugs/imagery to that in some media is the only thing I'm personally alright with. I know "for the children" is bad reasoning, but a five year old might imitate that stuff, so.