Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Censorship
#1
Today in my AP Language and Composition class (the one I keep going on about) we talked about censorship. That's the theme of the next two weeks--censorship in media, censoring ourselves, censoring in law and morality, censorship in school, etc. It's been fascinating and I have been riveted by the discussion. You know you are so interested that you stare right at the speaker and turn over every word they say and don't even realize that you are probably making them uncomfortable? Yeah, I've been doing that a lot. Anyway, I thought that it would be interesting to hear all of your takes on censorship, using the questions that my teacher posed us for homework:

1) How much freedom should we be willing to trade for national security?

2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?

3) Who should have the right to enforce these laws?

4) What right do I have to my own privacy?

5) What right does the public have to know about my life/beliefs/actions?

6) What role should the media play in reporting crimes?

7) What should the government be allowed to censor in the media?

8) Why should some topics/words/ideas/images be censored?

9) What role does/should age play in the right to privacy?


Paragraph long answers are welcome--encouraged, in fact. This topic is fascinating and there were quite a few opinions in the class. By the way, fun fact; I have determined that my teacher is an INTP. That's probably why I love her class so much. Another thing is that I got one of the best compliments today. I was really into the censorship discussion, so I stayed after class with a few other kids to talk to my teacher and we got even deeper into the topic. We were all very excited, and the smaller amount of people let me share more of my thoughts. After speaking about cognitive dissonance and the difference between what I feel to be true and what is practical, my teacher told me that I should take philosophy next year Smile I could tell she was really impressed. And it meant so much to me because I have so much respect for her and her intelligence, I'll be honest I really wanted her to think I was smart. That's a little embarrassing to admit but I'm sure you guys understand. Anyway, what do you think?
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes." --Douglas Adams
Reply
#2
Okay, I'll bite.

(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 1) How much freedom should we be willing to trade for national security?

2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?

3) Who should have the right to enforce these laws?

4) What right do I have to my own privacy?

5) What right does the public have to know about my life/beliefs/actions?

6) What role should the media play in reporting crimes?

7) What should the government be allowed to censor in the media?

8) Why should some topics/words/ideas/images be censored?

9) What role does/should age play in the right to privacy?

1) My initial gut instinct for how much we should be willing to trade is none. But it's so complicated, isn't it? I say none because I believe it creates a slippery slope that eventually could lead to us needing security from national security. If an attack happens, which bad things do happen, then we (by we, I mean some people) blame the government for not doing enough, and so the government does more, which requires more violations of freedom (as others see it). I just think national security can only do so much, and we shouldn't give up freedoms that we don't all agree on giving up for false expectations of it's ability to protect us.

2) That should never? Yes. That can be taken away? I don't believe they can be taken away. I believe we either defend them or we forfeit or right to expect them to be there.

3) Only we, or who we delegate, should have the right to enforce them.

4) I believe you have a right to privacy where it would be reasonable to expect privacy. Your own home, your thoughts (I say this because there are advances being made in neuroscience with brain monitoring). I am undecided about internet searches and emails. If you own the domain and the server personally: yes. I don't think a company should be required to allow access to user's data from the government but we allow this. I wouldn't call it a right of ours that they don't willingly give up our information. I truly believe our right to privacy it's what we define it to be. We should ask ourselves what we would want and demand it be given to everyone. But as a society we are such hypocrites. NSA pisses us off and then we watch celebrity news which has created an industry of invading public figures personal lives beyond what seems like fair game.

5) I don't think of this in terms of a right the public has.

6) I believe we should all act in our own best interest, including media corporations. And when I say this, I do not mean that we do already do this. The media is going to report the things that we demand it reports. If it's in our best interest that the media reports certain things, or doesn't cross certain lines, we act in our own best interests by defining for the media what we determine to be acceptable.

7) Absolutely nothing. We should have the ability to determine what is acceptable or not, like I said.

8) I don't believe any should be. Censoring them projects false ideas of reality. The truth is these things exist and to allow them to be censored because they maybe offend us sets precedence for allowing anything to be censored. We should allow ourselves to be offended and react accordingly. But getting a distorted view of the big picture causes confusion and division when we don't have something definitive we can all make judgements on. What's the truth? Well if things are censored, "truth" depends on what you want to believe, have special knowledge of, or how in denial you are. In other words, there are many truths.

9) I believe parents shouldn't have open access to everything their child does. I think at some point a child can choose not to share something with their parent and that parent shouldn't be able to demand that info from a school or doctor or wherever the child confided in. In the US, children live 18 years of their lives without experiencing the ability to demand privacy, and I think it strips them of their will to demand it in adulthood from others others, and replaces it with complacency for when their privacy is violated. It should outrage them on the basis of a principles that have been nurtured from a young age. They learn about their constitutional right to privacy in elementary school and by the time it's awarded to them at 18, that lesson is long sense passed.


Weird. I could argue both sides to most of these questions, and some of them I only took the position I did because it would go against the reasoning behind a previous answer. Good questions though. My answers amuse me because they go against how I've based votes or political opinions in the past.
Reply
#3
(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 1) How much freedom should we be willing to trade for national security?
We shouldn't be willing to trade freedom for "national security" at all.
All this national security stuff is false security anyways... it's a kind of self fulfilling prophecy thing. The only reason it's "needed" is because countries try to force their way of thinking/living to other countries in order to gain more power.

Quote:2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?
Should never, all of them. Can never, none of them. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble... If some guy some where at some agency decides you are a "terrorist" you probably loose it all.

Quote:3) Who should have the right to enforce these laws?
Which laws are you referring to? The ones that limit peoples freedom's? Nobady can be trusted to enforce them. This kind of power corrupts.

Quote:4) What right do I have to my own privacy?
Every right, but it's being violated by just about anything and anyone these days.

Quote:5) What right does the public have to know about my life/beliefs/actions?
Limited rights.

Quote:6) What role should the media play in reporting crimes?
More objectivity, less entertainment... it appears media do anything to get more viewers/readers. Fact checkings seems to have become secondary priority.

Quote:7) What should the government be allowed to censor in the media?
Nothing, if the government wants something they have done censored they probably shouldn't have done it.

Quote:8) Why should some topics/words/ideas/images be censored?
In europe this is always quite a funny topic to discuss. Big Grin
Everybody agrees that the US is probably the most hypocritical country on earth regarding this topic.. Tongue
I don't think I have to give any examples, but just think about violence on tv, nipples on tv, the word fuck (or any other bad word), the list is probably endless. I don't see any reason why any of the above should be censored, but I'm not so easily offended by anything. These days people think they get "offended" by the smallest things... if we where going to censor anything that might be seen as offending by someone we are better off getting rid of tv, radio and internet and go back in time a couple centuries. In those days it was much more difficult to "offend" somebody on the other side of the planet.

I hope I offended someone by writing this. Big Grin

Quote:9) What role does/should age play in the right to privacy?
As far as I know age doesn't play a role in the right to privacy.
Reply
#4
(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 1) How much freedom should we be willing to trade for national security?

Kind of an interesting question... and my answer is "none." The problem of trading freedom for national security is that it creates a slippery slope. If lawmakers decide, for instance, to suspend the right of habeas corpus for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, that inherently goes against the rights of due process that our legal system was founded upon. Almost never, in our nation's history, has such a breach been tolerated. Take, for example, Boumediene v. Bush. The holding was clear - EVEN terrorism suspects from foreign nations are entitled, legally, to due process rights, including challenging their detainment in US courts - a standard that was established with cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and even in Ex parte Milligan during the Civil War. Without holdings like Boumediene, it's easy to argue that a threat to national security entitles the government to do anything it likes - including detain a citizen indefinitely in a military prison.

Of course, I could talk for hours about the President's war powers. To relate it back to the general question, though, I think the example stands - if you give up a little bit (habeas corpus), it's easy for the government to do the unthinkable (detain citizens indefinitely).

(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?

Short answer? All of them. If I'm pressed for a list, the tried-and-true "life, liberty, and property" begins to answer it. More specifically, the right to free thought (both political and religious) and expression (again, both political and religious), as well as the right to defend one's self (both literally and metaphorically) and loved ones. Still, that doesn't really get the full extent of my beliefs. In general, I have two rights - the right to do whatever I like to and with my own person, and the ability to defend the people and things dear to me.

Without these rights, a government could become a tyranny overnight, and ruin the delicate social contract that society is founded upon. The government rightly has no interests of its own, but is merely an instrument by which the people of a nation exercise their desires. As such, basic individual liberties (the right to do whatever I like to and with my own person) should never be infringed upon insofar as they are individually exercised, or exercised with the fully informed consent of all parties involved. That is, I should have the right to smoke marijuana, because it only impacts me. I do not have the right, however, to snort cocaine and then operate a vehicle, because that impacts every driver on the road with me, most of whom would prefer that their lives not be endangered by my driving.

As for the second right, because not everyone will respect my right to my own person, I need the ability to defend myself - with force if necessary - from those who would separate me from my person (ie, kill me), or use my body against my will (eg, rape me).

(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 3) Who should have the right to enforce these laws?

THAT is where the government comes in - to enforce laws agreed upon by the people. The purpose of a government is twofold: one, to enable the people of a society to make a cohesive set of laws that reflect the needs and desires of the people - for instance, approving budgetary concerns or making laws which protect the rights of the people, such as outlawing murder. Secondly, the government exists to enforce those laws, through bureaucratic or police action as necessary.

(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 4) What right do I have to my own privacy?

Every right. See my comments above about individual liberties, but, in short, what you do in private, to and with yourself or with people who give informed consent to do things to/with you, is of no concern to the government or anyone whom you do not decide to share it with.


[To be continued tomorrow; I'd finish, but I'm beyond exhausted right now and words aren't coming like they usually do.]


(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 5) What right does the public have to know about my life/beliefs/actions?

See above. No one has the right to know anything about you that you don't choose to share with them.

(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 6) What role should the media play in reporting crimes?

There is a fine line. Some crimes, I have a legitimate personal interest in knowing about (for instance, I'd like to know if there is a string of serial murders in my area). However, the media doesn't need to sensationalize everything (not every drunk driver needs their name plastered all over FOX News).

(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 7) What should the government be allowed to censor in the media?

Abso-frickin-lutely nothing. The government (as I've discussed) has no interests of its own. Thus, the government has no interests in censoring any part of the media. If the media finds it appropriate to report it, then the media should be able to. If we (people) dislike what we see on the news, for instance, then it's up to the people to work to change reporting standards. The shift of responsibility from the person to the government is a recipe for disaster.

(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 8) Why should some topics/words/ideas/images be censored?

They shouldn't.

(11-16-2013, 01:53 AM)loolitay Wrote: 9) What role does/should age play in the right to privacy?

Put shortly, it's a matter of degree. A six-year-old doesn't have a right to privacy as concerns her mother; an eighteen-year-old does. However, concerning the government, there is no difference - the government has no right to know what the six-year-old is doing any more than they have the right to know what the eighteen-year-old is doing.
[/quote]
Reply
#5
Don't worry, I've wanted people to think I'm smart as well. It is embarrassing to admit but I'm sure that if we didn't have others confident in our intelligence, we would feel quite stupid.

I'll bite for these questions as well. Should be interesting!

1) How much freedom should we be willing to trade for national security?

Should we be really willing to trade any freedom for security? If you look at countries that have censored their internet services, they insist on censoring things that go against the countries religions and/or policies. They intend to make sure that their people won't "revolt". This is staunching freedom, and is not also part of national security even if they seem to think it is necessary for their security as a country. If you look at it, freedom and security should not be on a negative feedback scale. We should be given as much freedom as available, so we can function as individuals with our own minds, and we can protect our country while still having that freedom.

2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?

I think so. One that comes to mind is free speech, but not free speech with the intent to harm or shame. I also think internet censorship shouldn't exist, so we should always have access to all available information. Another random one is choice of dog breed. We shouldn't be banned from owning pit bulls just because of the attacks that have happened due to other owners neglect to care.

3) Who should have the right to enforce these laws?

Police ... I think. Our laws now are enforced by them and with more freedoms they'd even have less to patrol. I also believe the government (using the court system) should have the right to enforce laws, like they all ready do.

4) What right do I have to my own privacy?

You should have the right to your own privacy unless something you hold private absolutely needs to be known. Any age as well.

5) What right does the public have to know about my life/beliefs/actions?

They have no right to know about your life/belief/actions if you do not want to tell them. No right at all. The public can keep it's snotty little nose out of your life if you would like them to. You should have the right to complete privacy if it is something you require.

6) What role should the media play in reporting crimes?

The Media should almost play no role in reporting crimes. They don't need to broadcast everything! They also tend to broadcast extremely viscous crimes, and not the menial ones. I think, they should only be allowed to report dangers relating to crime in an attempt to keep people safe.

7) What should the government be allowed to censor in the media?

Nothing! Why do we need to censor media? If you don't want to see it, don't watch it, and if you don't want your children to see it, don't freaking let them watch it. It shouldn't be the governments responsibility to censor media, when we don't need to in the first place. If you can't handle the freedom, don't.

8) Why should some topics/words/ideas/images be censored?

They, honestly, shouldn't be. I believe as a species, we should be able to handle content that may offend others.

9) What role does/should age play in the right to privacy?

Shouldn't, at any age, we have the right to privacy?
Reply
#6
I am going to play a bit of devil's advocate here:

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: Don't worry, I've wanted people to think I'm smart as well. It is embarrassing to admit but I'm sure that if we didn't have others confident in our intelligence, we would feel quite stupid.

I'll bite for these questions as well. Should be interesting!

1) How much freedom should we be willing to trade for national security?

Should we be really willing to trade any freedom for security? If you look at countries that have censored their internet services, they insist on censoring things that go against the countries religions and/or policies. They intend to make sure that their people won't "revolt". This is staunching freedom, and is not also part of national security even if they seem to think it is necessary for their security as a country. If you look at it, freedom and security should not be on a negative feedback scale. We should be given as much freedom as available, so we can function as individuals with our own minds, and we can protect our country while still having that freedom.

I feel like there is some sort of exception here but I can't think of what it might be. An example that comes to mind is Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast, which led people to believe that the US was being invaded by aliens. The result was complete and utter chaos, and even a few injuries and deaths. Perhaps in the case of such a calamity it is a danger to tell everyone what is going? So if something like that were to actually happen, it might be in everyone's interest for us not to know, or to only know bits. I feel that we have a right to know, but in practice that may not be as wise.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?

I think so. One that comes to mind is free speech, but not free speech with the intent to harm or shame.
Then doesn't that mean that it's not an absolute freedom?

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: I also think internet censorship shouldn't exist, so we should always have access to all available information. Another random one is choice of dog breed. We shouldn't be banned from owning pit bulls just because of the attacks that have happened due to other owners neglect to care.
I don't think the government has the right to censor the internet. But perhaps parents have the right to do so on their children's computers.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 3) Who should have the right to enforce these laws?

Police ... I think. Our laws now are enforced by them and with more freedoms they'd even have less to patrol. I also believe the government (using the court system) should have the right to enforce laws, like they all ready do.
Agreed.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 4) What right do I have to my own privacy?

You should have the right to your own privacy unless something you hold private absolutely needs to be known. Any age as well.
For example, if I did something that were to endanger the people around me, they have a right to know.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 5) What right does the public have to know about my life/beliefs/actions?

They have no right to know about your life/belief/actions if you do not want to tell them. No right at all. The public can keep it's snotty little nose out of your life if you would like them to. You should have the right to complete privacy if it is something you require.
What if it's in their best interest? For example, if someone is a pedophile living on the the same street as some children. Do they have the right to know? What if you are a neo-Nazi living on the same street as Jews? And so on and so forth.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 6) What role should the media play in reporting crimes?
The Media should almost play no role in reporting crimes. They don't need to broadcast everything! They also tend to broadcast extremely viscous crimes, and not the menial ones. I think, they should only be allowed to report dangers relating to crime in an attempt to keep people safe.
The media is very important in allowing us to know the general temperature of current events at the moment, or at least allowing us to know a temperature... wether that is under or over exaggerated is a different matter. However, I think that it is important that the media report crimes that are important for the general public to know, such as crimes that reveal what is going on in a specific region, the opinion of the world, that affect the people of a certain area, etc. However, I don't believe that sensationalist media is good either. That one is a hard line to walk.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 7) What should the government be allowed to censor in the media?

Nothing! Why do we need to censor media? If you don't want to see it, don't watch it, and if you don't want your children to see it, don't freaking let them watch it. It shouldn't be the governments responsibility to censor media, when we don't need to in the first place. If you can't handle the freedom, don't.
What in places where we can't avoid seeing things? Do we not also have the right to consume what we like? An example of what I mean is if you were to see a billboard while driving with your children that has a picture of gay sex. Many people would not be okay with this, and think that should be censored. You can say that they just shouldn't look at the billboard, but at that point they already have--and they can't keep their kid from staring at it. What is more important--the right to free speech or the right to consume what you want? It's like being forced to eat banana bread.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 8) Why should some topics/words/ideas/images be censored?

They, honestly, shouldn't be. I believe as a species, we should be able to handle content that may offend others.
Look at what I wrote above.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 9) What role does/should age play in the right to privacy?

Shouldn't, at any age, we have the right to privacy?
I'm not sure what to think of this yet.


Also, none of this necessarily expresses my views Smile I tend to take both sides...
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes." --Douglas Adams
Reply
#7
(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote:
(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?

I think so. One that comes to mind is free speech, but not free speech with the intent to harm or shame.
Then doesn't that mean that it's not an absolute freedom?

I actually agree right here - it's the role of society, not the government, to staunch hatred. The government is too large to start legislating social norms.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote:
(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: I also think internet censorship shouldn't exist, so we should always have access to all available information. Another random one is choice of dog breed. We shouldn't be banned from owning pit bulls just because of the attacks that have happened due to other owners neglect to care.
I don't think the government has the right to censor the internet. But perhaps parents have the right to do so on their children's computers.

I don't think parental rights are even a question, honestly - your kids, your responsibility, so your rights to do what needs to be done. Incidentally, the right to own any dog breed is one I support wholeheartedly. Breed bans are ridiculous.
Reply
#8
(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: I am going to play a bit of devil's advocate here:

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: Don't worry, I've wanted people to think I'm smart as well. It is embarrassing to admit but I'm sure that if we didn't have others confident in our intelligence, we would feel quite stupid.

I'll bite for these questions as well. Should be interesting!

1) How much freedom should we be willing to trade for national security?

Should we be really willing to trade any freedom for security? If you look at countries that have censored their internet services, they insist on censoring things that go against the countries religions and/or policies. They intend to make sure that their people won't "revolt". This is staunching freedom, and is not also part of national security even if they seem to think it is necessary for their security as a country. If you look at it, freedom and security should not be on a negative feedback scale. We should be given as much freedom as available, so we can function as individuals with our own minds, and we can protect our country while still having that freedom.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: I feel like there is some sort of exception here but I can't think of what it might be. An example that comes to mind is Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast, which led people to believe that the US was being invaded by aliens. The result was complete and utter chaos, and even a few injuries and deaths. Perhaps in the case of such a calamity it is a danger to tell everyone what is going? So if something like that were to actually happen, it might be in everyone's interest for us not to know, or to only know bits. I feel that we have a right to know, but in practice that may not be as wise.

I'll rebut! Though I do realize what you mean :3

I can see that in some situations. Because we are not presently within these situations it is hard to tell what is right and wrong when it comes to providing information to the public. What I do think though, is that the public shouldn't be completely left in the dark, and it shouldn't be over dramatized by the media, like it always is.


(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?

I think so. One that comes to mind is free speech, but not free speech with the intent to harm or shame.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: Then doesn't that mean that it's not an absolute freedom?

I thought absolute freedom meant that it would be a freedom that is always available, not a freedom without some restrictions. If the question was intending to ask for a freedom without restrictions, then I think I would go with internet freedom.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: I also think internet censorship shouldn't exist, so we should always have access to all available information. Another random one is choice of dog breed. We shouldn't be banned from owning pit bulls just because of the attacks that have happened due to other owners neglect to care.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: I don't think the government has the right to censor the internet. But perhaps parents have the right to do so on their children's computers.

Yeah, yeah. I believe I stated that in a lower question, but like you said, the government should stay out of it. Parents should be allowed to do so, as not all content is appropriate for children, but when they are old enough, they may access that content freely.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 3) Who should have the right to enforce these laws?

Police ... I think. Our laws now are enforced by them and with more freedoms they'd even have less to patrol. I also believe the government (using the court system) should have the right to enforce laws, like they all ready do.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: Agreed.

Sweet!

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 4) What right do I have to my own privacy?

You should have the right to your own privacy unless something you hold private absolutely needs to be known. Any age as well.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: For example, if I did something that were to endanger the people around me, they have a right to know.

Yeah! That's exactly what I mean't. Big Grin

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 5) What right does the public have to know about my life/beliefs/actions?

They have no right to know about your life/belief/actions if you do not want to tell them. No right at all. The public can keep it's snotty little nose out of your life if you would like them to. You should have the right to complete privacy if it is something you require.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: What if it's in their best interest? For example, if someone is a pedophile living on the the same street as some children. Do they have the right to know? What if you are a neo-Nazi living on the same street as Jews? And so on and so forth.

It is not your responsibility to know these things, or too find them out for yourself. It is the responsibility of the guardians of the country to make sure that everyone is safe from harm, and would be their responsibility to inform others in the event of those beliefs/actions and/or lifestyles.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 6) What role should the media play in reporting crimes?
The Media should almost play no role in reporting crimes. They don't need to broadcast everything! They also tend to broadcast extremely viscous crimes, and not the menial ones. I think, they should only be allowed to report dangers relating to crime in an attempt to keep people safe.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: The media is very important in allowing us to know the general temperature of current events at the moment, or at least allowing us to know a temperature... wether that is under or over exaggerated is a different matter. However, I think that it is important that the media report crimes that are important for the general public to know, such as crimes that reveal what is going on in a specific region, the opinion of the world, that affect the people of a certain area, etc. However, I don't believe that sensationalist media is good either. That one is a hard line to walk.

It is. And it is hard to say what the media can and cannot do. Who would police that?

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 7) What should the government be allowed to censor in the media?

Nothing! Why do we need to censor media? If you don't want to see it, don't watch it, and if you don't want your children to see it, don't freaking let them watch it. It shouldn't be the governments responsibility to censor media, when we don't need to in the first place. If you can't handle the freedom, don't.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: What in places where we can't avoid seeing things? Do we not also have the right to consume what we like? An example of what I mean is if you were to see a billboard while driving with your children that has a picture of gay sex. Many people would not be okay with this, and think that should be censored. You can say that they just shouldn't look at the billboard, but at that point they already have--and they can't keep their kid from staring at it. What is more important--the right to free speech or the right to consume what you want? It's like being forced to eat banana bread.

True, true. But, when answering that question I had a more narrow field of media in mind, and that was TV and internet. When it comes to things like that, I think something would need to be done as well. So, limited censorship on things that are very visible.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 8) Why should some topics/words/ideas/images be censored?

They, honestly, shouldn't be. I believe as a species, we should be able to handle content that may offend others.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: Look at what I wrote above.

Again, wasn't thinking of billboards, or anything you would not be able to avoid seeing.

(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 9) What role does/should age play in the right to privacy?

Shouldn't, at any age, we have the right to privacy?

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: I'm not sure what to think of this yet.

Alright.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote: Also, none of this necessarily expresses my views Smile I tend to take both sides...

Me too honestly. It's hard to defend your point when the other person makes a very good point as well.

(12-31-2013, 03:09 PM)Azayn Wrote:
(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote:
(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: 2) Are there some freedoms that are absolute-freedoms that can never/should never be taken away?

I think so. One that comes to mind is free speech, but not free speech with the intent to harm or shame.
Then doesn't that mean that it's not an absolute freedom?

I actually agree right here - it's the role of society, not the government, to staunch hatred. The government is too large to start legislating social norms.

(12-31-2013, 02:18 PM)loolitay Wrote:
(12-31-2013, 12:48 PM)HighAsAKite Wrote: I also think internet censorship shouldn't exist, so we should always have access to all available information. Another random one is choice of dog breed. We shouldn't be banned from owning pit bulls just because of the attacks that have happened due to other owners neglect to care.
I don't think the government has the right to censor the internet. But perhaps parents have the right to do so on their children's computers.

I don't think parental rights are even a question, honestly - your kids, your responsibility, so your rights to do what needs to be done. Incidentally, the right to own any dog breed is one I support wholeheartedly. Breed bans are ridiculous.

I can see what you are saying about society's job. Unfortunately, neither society or the government do a very good job at what they are meant to do.
Mhmmmm. Your kids, your problem. I hate breed bans! There are so, so many things that could be done instead of those dumb breed specific bans.
Reply
#9
That depends on what you mean by “censorship.” If you mean it in the true sense, government restrictions on expression, very little is necessary except for those acts that harm other people such as fraud or libel. Censorship in showbiz news https://zoomboola.com of obscene material remains a debated issue in a lot of places. I don’t feel that it’s necessary unless crimes are committed to make it, such as photographic child pornography.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)