|
|
|
Ethical Censorship 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Thought maybe this would be a good topic, since it doesn't require much academic background to engage in.
In Islam (and thus, Islamic/Islamist states, and microcosms), images of Muhammad or of any things which are perceived as idolatrous are prohibited. (E.g., the Bamayan Buddhas, the Muhammad cartoons, etc).
In Germany, I'm pretty sure Nazi paraphernalia, expressions of sympathy for Nazism, etc., are heavily censored.
In most Western countries, Holocaust denial is, if not directly censored, frowned upon by authorities and can result in punishment.
Most people, unless they're a strange breed of hardcore libertarian, would agree that there are probably good reasons for at least some level of censorship in the latter two cases, but probably not for the first.
Why is that?
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
The kind of philosophy one chooses depends upon what kind of person one is. ~ J.G. Fichte
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: Ethical Censorship 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
Good topic.
Some countries might be handy:
The dividing line often cited in the US is
"yelling fire in a crowded theatre", that is, only when
obvious and immediate threat to life and limb is given.
In the UK, the American hate-Jock radio host
Michael Savage has been banned for entering because
some of his statements cannot possibly contribute
to democratic debate and only contribute to group
hates and violence (it is alleged). Speech is considered
capable of violence.
"Yelling fire" seems like the outer liimit.
there should be something better, but I'm not sure
how you guarantee a fair and un-corruptible judgement.
The 'yelling fire' thing has already been hotly debated.
Look out, the polemicists will arrive.  |
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: Ethical Censorship 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Perhaps it is that when falsehoods are uttered to a mass-audience in such a way that they will be believed to be truths, and as such will motivate behaviour in obviously negative ways (resulting in reduced social cohesion and societal function), they must be censored.
Then, I guess, there is a practical question about how to determine such cases. Religious authorities obviously believe idolatry to be the uttering of believable falsehoods to the detriment of the community in the same way that the German authorities believe holocaust denial to be the same.
So... how to arbitrate? And why?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The kind of philosophy one chooses depends upon what kind of person one is. ~ J.G. Fichte
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: Ethical Censorship 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
Reasonable censorship should, I believe, fall at the mean between the extremes between the excessively permissive, e.g., providing bomb making information to potential suicide bombers, legalizing child sex, etc. or unreasonably restrictive, e.g., outlawing holocaust deniers (not Holocaust promoters!), outlawing the right of women to walk around topless in public, etc. Unfortunately,, most people would not agree on what is excessive and what is the mean between the extremes. In the United States, if the majority could vote on censorship, atheism and Playboy Magazine would be banned!
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: Ethical Censorship 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
As I understand it, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as being compatible with restrictions as to the time, place, and manner of expression; but not as to its content.
Hyper, et al.
I disagree that content should be censored if it crosses some line (or if it crosses one of several lines), on the ground that wrong ideas need to be exposed in their wrongness, which occurs in civil society, in literature, etc. It's one of those things that can't be forced, like language. Corrupt and false ideas are eventually sifted into the appropriate pile, where they lose their power and become lessons in what not to believe. At any rate, repressed ideas take on the glamor of a force that may yet prevail, if only it would be allowed to take the field in a fair fight.
Actually I forgot, there is one exception to restriction as to content; to wit: obscenity, which is to be defined according to the standards of the community.
Edit: Evidently the standard is pretty high, because I never hear of anyone being prosecuted for it. And I mean. So, yeah.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Solitude, my mother, tell me my life again. -- O.V. de Milosz
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: Ethical Censorship 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
The problem is immaturity. People do not use their own understanding, they use Fox or CNN's understanding. Therefore, the sophisms of media can easily control society.
In the same light, Muslims do not actually reference the Koran or the Muslim tradition, they lean on the understanding of their own Glen Becks, who tell them painting a picture of Muhammad is wrong.
These Muslims did not have a problem with it:
[img]http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/muhammad_files/slide0014_image029.jpg" />
(It is around 7th century, if I remember right.)
I think freedom of speech only works in a well educated, rational society.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
"All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking." -Friedrich Nietzsche.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
