The politics of censorship

aurelius79

The censorship of thought. Is it good? Is it bad?

On one hand you have censorship that silences hatred and racism like in modern day Germany. Anyone that publicly questions the facts as they are presented about the holocaust is immediately arrested and thrown in jail. Ok, maybe that was a bad example.

The censorship of extreme violence in media is a good thing when children and young adults may encounter it. Parents can not watch their children twenty-four hours a day. I believe we as a community should ensure that these types of images should be kept out of mainstream media.

But then by making people take more responsibility for their actions, you could say censorship of things like mainstream media is unnecessary.
Adults who wish to view extremely violent films or play violent games should have the freedom to do so provided they are responsible enough to do so.

Now on the other hand you have censorship of independent thought, free speech, and political dissent. This can be seen in countries such as China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. While some could argue that this is necessary to ensure law and order, others could argue that it only creates oppression and intellectual stagnation.

So what are your views on censorship? Is it always good, always bad or somewhere in between? Where does personal responsibility end and governmental controls begin?

SLUSK

Censorship is always bad.

By that I mean government imposed censorship. Obviously responsible media outlets should be allowed to practice "self censorship" by not showing offensive stuff. I am guessing no major media outlet would show animal porn on their channels

However if someone wants to show disgusting stuff like bestiality on their channels we have no right to force them not to.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

Censorship is always bad.

By that I mean government imposed censorship. Obviously responsible media outlets should be allowed to practice "self censorship" by not showing offensive stuff. I am guessing no major media outlet would show animal porn on their channels

However if someone wants to show disgusting stuff like bestiality on their channels we have no right to force them not to.

"Transparency" gone horribly wrong.

Theres a great argument for Censorship for ya.

I actually stumbled across a government document a couple years ago (I never understood its relevance it just came up in a google) but the PDF had Censorship black all over it: what happens when you use your mouse and select the text?

Exactly.

About as secure as the wrapper on a cupcake. Except instead of being some obscure internal memo (what I found) this was a TSA Specbook, outlining virtually all TSA screening operations right down to what thickness of wire can pass through a metal detector without setting it off, and which items do not have to be screened at all (like prescription footwear and wheelchairs). That information was available for anyone to read.

TSA passenger screening manual leaked online

The 93-page TSA operating manual details procedures for screening passengers and checked baggage, and it reveals technical settings used by X-ray machines and explosives detectors.

It also includes pictures of identification cards used by members of Congress, CIA employees and federal air marshals, pointing out what elements determine their validity, and it identifies 12 countries whose passport-holders are automatically subject to added scrutiny.

TSA officials said the manual was posted online in a redacted form on a federal procurement Web site, but the digital redactions were inadequate. They allowed computer users to highlight and copy blacked-out passages and paste them into a new document or an e-mail.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/09/MNLR1B1B55.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0ZXiPv7Rb

Censorship for National Security is often necessary.

SLUSK

The leaked documents confirm what we already know. Passenger screening is just a charade.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers115.html

I still see no reason for censorship. All people who love wearing jackboots and march in straight lines will always bring up the argument about "national security".

Overheal

You're right, lets publish nuclear armament codes and naval fleet positions while we're at it. Have my credit card details too. I trust you. Really.

Im not going to argue with you. You're stance on this issue is extreme far left, in that you would choose to have no censorship for any and all reasons. I dont think thats the point of this thread: Im just pointing out (to answer the OPs question) is that some censorship is necessary.

Pertaining to censorship in media, thats a grey area. When does graphic nature become the story, and when does it simply obfuscate the issue? There are times for instance when words on paper will not invoke nearly the same (or any) of the emotional response that video or imagery would. Whether thats a good thing or not depends on your perspective. Would 9/11 have had nearly the same sociological impact without the Flight 93 call audio or the images of offices workers jumping out of windows? Was this media used too gratuitously in rallying a nation to war (afghanistan) or was it simply just cause? Do you really need to see and hear what is happening in Gaza or is it enough to read the first hand accounts, and pore over statistics? Do images of civilian casualties inappropriately sway your opinion over a given political situation? To they really tell the truth?

SLUSK

I am a free market libertarian, not a leftist. They disgust me.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

I am a free market libertarian, not a leftist. They disgust me.

im just saying that, regarding to this issue. The Left being absolutely no censorship and the right being 100% censorship. Though in all areas the political spectrum cant be simplified down to a line or a graph across every issue. Obviously there will always be an issue you or someone is going to also be very conservative about.

bonkey

Everyone supports censorship....they just draw different lines on who should be allowed censor what.

By this, I mean that no-one seriously believes that all information should be available to everyone, just by the asking. They may not support state-imposed censorship, but that's just drawing one of those lines I mentioned.

peasant

The other side of the question of course is ...when does censorship become propaganda?

Deliberately withholding certain information while stressing other bits can be fairly iffy too.

That is something we're subjected to every day. For example, the dead body count from Irak or Afghanistan. You will read that so many insurgents or civilians were killed during the last bomb blast. Just the number, an obscure place name and no further details.
One of the allied soldiers gets killed and you get his whole biography including pictures of the weeping relatives.

While here in the west we have it pretty good in regards to availability of information (there really is only very little censorship), the "coloration" of that information is a different matter altogether.

imme

aurelius79 wrote: »

The censorship of thought. Is it good? Is it bad?

thought cannot be censored

aurelius79

imme wrote: »

thought cannot be censored

My apologies, the censorship of the expression of thought.

Anyway, I don't think we should confuse non-disclosure of information and censorship. In my opinion, any person or organization has the right to withhold information or ideas so long as they are the source of that information. Censorship is a third-party intervention to limit the exchange of ideas and information.

Let's say the U.S. military doesn't want to disclose information regarding the testing of biological weapons on human test subjects at Fort Detrick. This is their right as they are the owners of the information produced from such tests.

Now let's say a survivor of such tests decides to make his experience at Fort Detrick publicly known. Should his voice be silenced in the interest of "national security" or do the people have a right to know what their government is doing behind closed doors. The actual technical and scientific information is never disclosed, just the events as witnessed by this particular survivor.

FutureTaoiseach

I am generally opposed to censorship - but it depends. Where debate on policy - including controversial subjects - is concerned, I strongly favour freedom of speech - provided what is being proposed is not incitement to hatred. At the same time, nations have the right to limit freedom of information for reasons such as:

A: The possibility it would prejudice an ongoing trial or a possible trial in the future, leading to the trial's collapse. It is in the common good that this not be allowed to occur. The Haughey trial collapsed after a govt minister said he should be jailed, for example.

B: National security.

C: To prevent libel/slander.

To prevent incitement to break the law in a democratic state.

E: To prevent the spread of child-pornography.

Other than that, I believe in a relative free-for-all in terms of free speech. True democracy i.e. (in Lincoln's words) 'government by/for/of the people' is at its most direct when people have freedom to decide what they want the government to do. If certain policy areas are closed off from discussion - either because of authoritarian impulses of excessive Political-Correctness - then democracy is not truly present in the political-climate of that country. In particular, I think we can say in that respect that on immigration and asylum-issues, there is not true democracy in this country. For a society to be able to exercise democratic control over any area of policy, there has to be space given for that policy to be debated. And that is certainly not the case here in Ireland. The Irish Left - especially in the broadcast-media - are largely to blame for this. They think that by closing down debate with false charges of 'racism', they will reduce the chances of the growth of racism. In fact, the rise of Hitler and Mussolini had nothing to do with immigration. But that doesn't stop the PC-brigade shouting "fascist" at anyone who calls for tighter controls.

I have more faith in the Irish people than those who believe they will turn into National Socialists if given an opportunity to express their views - in a respectful manner - on this area of policy. The Left insult the intelligence of the Irish people when they imply otherwise. It is largely a backlash against that kind of over-weening, Irish Times' style, Political-Correctness, that caused the rise of Far Right parties across Europe.

bonkey

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But that doesn't stop the PC-brigade shouting "fascist" at anyone who calls for tighter controls.

Applying labels to demean one group...who you accuse of applying labels to demean another group.

You both have the freedom to do so, of course, but "obviously" its only they who are wrong.

Cannibal Ox

peasant wrote:

That is something we're subjected to every day. For example, the dead body count from Irak or Afghanistan. You will read that so many insurgents or civilians were killed during the last bomb blast. Just the number, an obscure place name and no further details.
One of the allied soldiers gets killed and you get his whole biography including pictures of the weeping relatives.

Garr...I wanted to say that :P

The idea of obituaries being a kind of aggressive censorship that prevents people in one country from recognizing those in another country, their suffering, their existence as human beings, their lives and subsequent deaths, and at the same time amplifying that of their own countrymen and women's humanity, is really interesting.

and it leads to this...

imme wrote: »

thought cannot be censored

Without getting to abstract, if censorship through obituaries prevents people from even recognizing the existence of other people, then surely it's censoring their thought because it's preventing them from thinking about their existence?

What I mean is that, when an obituary for a soldier/a hostage/a diplomat runs in the UK or US, you get their entire life story, and that helps you identify with them in some form or another. When an Iraqi, Palestinian or an Afghani civilain dies, you very often don't get an obituary column, you don't get a report on their life, or their biography, and surely that's going to prevent you from recognise and identify with them in the same way that you recognize and identify with a soldier/ a hostage/a diplomat from the US or UK.

Of course, it doesn't happen in all media, Al Jazeera's more likely to concentrate on the death of an Iraqi civilian then Fox News.

Lockstep

Seems to me that there is a difference between freedom of speech and censorship.

WOuld always argue that we need freedom of expression, no matter how retarded or abhorrent the views being expressed.

Censorship is necessary in a society; Overheal already explained the necessity of national security matters.

ChocolateSauce

Overheal wrote: »

Censorship for National Security is often necessary.

The Soviets, Chinese and North Koreans would agree with you.

You're right, lets publish nuclear armament codes and naval fleet positions while we're at it.

There's a difference between choosing not to publish one's own information and telling another they cannot publish theirs.

Overheal

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There's a difference between choosing not to publish one's own information and telling another they cannot publish theirs.

Im not sure what youre referring to.

The Soviets, Chinese and North Koreans would agree with you.

Well if you believe the UFO theories, everybody's doing it. Well, except Mexico.

rohatch

Although I do not like the idea of censorship I agree that it is necessary in certain situations.