Is censorship moral?

[Loren Pechtel]

I see a different issue here--you can't use someone's likeness for commercial purposes without permission. I also see something of a defamation component.

I've often wondered if those who passed such laws had a vested interest in making sure there are no images depicting what they do. Censorship can come to the rescue of wrongdoers.

I think this is just a matter of property rights. You have a right to yourself.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I see a different issue here--you can't use someone's likeness for commercial purposes without permission. I also see something of a defamation component.

I've often wondered if those who passed such laws had a vested interest in making sure there are no images depicting what they do. Censorship can come to the rescue of wrongdoers.

I think this is just a matter of property rights. You have a right to yourself.

I have no right to use myself to hurt innocent people. Owning something does not open the door to violate other people with it, of course.

 

[DBT]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...maybe some lead.

 

[TomC]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

Could you be more specific about what you mean by censorship and the harm caused to you?
Tom

 

[DBT]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

A sample of one does not make a case.

 

[bilby]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am ...

This argument is not as compelling to others, as it appears to be to you. Largely because:

a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

...are un-evidenced assertions of your personal opinion, and not necessarily universally accepted as truths.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

A sample of one does not make a case.

Then I suppose I'm a very improbable case of a person who had no adverse reactions to being exposed to those images you find so dangerous.

 

[TomC]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

A sample of one does not make a case.

Then I suppose I'm a very improbable case of a person who had no adverse reactions to being exposed to those images you find so dangerous.

Or perhaps you aren't an authority on whether or not you are "well adjusted".

But again, what do you mean by censorship in this context and how have you been harmed by it?
Tom

 

[DBT]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

A sample of one does not make a case.

Then I suppose I'm a very improbable case of a person who had no adverse reactions to being exposed to those images you find so dangerous.

How do you know that you have not been adversely affected?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Then I suppose I'm a very improbable case of a person who had no adverse reactions to being exposed to those images you find so dangerous.

How do you know that you have not been adversely affected?

Isn't it obvious that I am one amazing dude who can defeat all comers in any debate?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

A sample of one does not make a case.

I forgot to point out that you claimed that some images harm kids. It is your burden to prove that claim. I have no burden to prove you wrong.

 

[DBT]

Then I suppose I'm a very improbable case of a person who had no adverse reactions to being exposed to those images you find so dangerous.

How do you know that you have not been adversely affected?

Isn't it obvious that I am one amazing dude who can defeat all comers in any debate?

Let's say that's true, so if watching murder and dismemberment (the real thing, not acting) has not effected you adversely, does that mean that nobody is effected adversely by watching these things?

 

[DBT]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

A sample of one does not make a case.

I forgot to point out that you claimed that some images harm kids. It is your burden to prove that claim. I have no burden to prove you wrong.

Are you suggesting that parents can allow their children unlimited internet access, porn, gore sites, etc, without concern for how it may effect them?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

A sample of one does not make a case.

I forgot to point out that you claimed that some images harm kids. It is your burden to prove that claim. I have no burden to prove you wrong.

Are you suggesting that parents can allow their children unlimited internet access, porn, gore sites, etc, without concern for how it may effect them?

You're doing it again! You have the onus to prove your claim. Where is the evidence that images you don't like hurt kids?

 

[bilby]

Where is the evidence that images you don't like hurt kids?

It's here:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...+exposed+to+violent+images+as+children+&btnG=

 

[DBT]

There are things that are not suitable for children, or perhaps even the general public, video's of murder, torture, dismemberment, etc.

I've been watching all of that since my youth, and here I am, a well-adjusted adult. I've only ever been harmed by censorship.

A sample of one does not make a case.

I forgot to point out that you claimed that some images harm kids. It is your burden to prove that claim. I have no burden to prove you wrong.

Are you suggesting that parents can allow their children unlimited internet access, porn, gore sites, etc, without concern for how it may effect them?

You're doing it again! You have the onus to prove your claim. Where is the evidence that images you don't like hurt kids?

You made the claim that because you have been watching brutal killings, torture, dismemberment, etc, all your life and it hasn't harmed you (debatable), therefore implying that it cannot or does not harm anyone, that is your claim, and that is what you need to support.

Don't deflect onto me. Support your own claim.


This type of study is not even considering the content you find on Gore sites;

''As a result of 15 years of “consistently disturbing” findings about the violent content of children’s programs, the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior was formed in 1969 to assess the impact of violence on the attitudes, values, and behavior of viewers. The resulting report and a follow-up report in 1982 by the National Institute of Mental Health identified these major effects of seeing violence on television:

• Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
• Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
• Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.''

Violence in the media: Psychologists study potential harmful effects

Early research on the effects of viewing violence on television—especially among children—found a desensitizing effect and the potential for aggression. Is the same true for those who play violent video games?

www.apa.org

 

[TomC]

• Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
• Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
• Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.''

I don't see how anyone could question this.
It's like wondering if a junk food diet will impact their physical health.

And I honestly think violent video games are worse because they're interactive.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You made the claim that because you have been watching brutal killings, torture, dismemberment, etc, all your life and it hasn't harmed you (debatable), therefore implying that it cannot or does not harm anyone, that is your claim, and that is what you need to support.

I was expressing one reason why I doubt your claim about the harm you allege some images inflict on kids. Skeptics have no burden of proof.

Don't deflect onto me. Support your own claim.

Even if I did have that obligation, I can't prove over an internet forum that I'm unharmed by those "bad" images.

This type of study is not even considering the content you find on Gore sites;

''As a result of 15 years of “consistently disturbing” findings about the violent content of children’s programs, the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior was formed in 1969 to assess the impact of violence on the attitudes, values, and behavior of viewers. The resulting report and a follow-up report in 1982 by the National Institute of Mental Health identified these major effects of seeing violence on television:

• Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
• Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
• Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.''

OK. Will censoring TV solve those kinds of problems?