Is censorship moral?

[Millrat]

In Australia at the moment we are in the midst of a public debate about gambling ads on TV, radio etc.
These ads are appearing during daylight hours i.e. when children are watching them.
Many children can now tell you the odds about certain events happening, or not. Too many kids are very serious about this rather than just realising it is just a game and so on.
We banned cigarette ads decades ago because of the realisation that such ads normalised and encouraged smoking. (And before somebody chips in with the note that smoking has not ceased. Yes it has not ceased. The aim was, and is, to decrease the amount of smoking and produce a social stigma. If it disappears few will lament its passing.).
Exactly the same reasoning applies to gambling ads. It will only encourage and normalise this speculative and non- productive behaivour.

We banned cigarette ads decades ago because of the realisation that such ads normalised and encouraged smoking.

That's an interesting point. I used to be a graphic designer, and I learned that designing an ad or any other graphic meant for public viewing is very tricky business. People generally ignore ads and do not respond to them by buying the product promoted. But of course an effective ad can increase sales and no doubt many cigarette ads do increase the sales and consumption of some brands of cigarettes. Anyway, here we are years after the censorship of cigarette ads, and people still smoke and get sick from smoking. Yes, the problem is not as bad as it used to be, but to credit censorship is not necessarily fair because other factors may have achieved the progress.

And with that, I've got to wonder why anyone is trying to change Unknown Soldier's mind, because clearly, it ain't happening.

Indeed.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In Australia at the moment we are in the midst of a public debate about gambling ads on TV, radio etc.
These ads are appearing during daylight hours i.e. when children are watching them.
Many children can now tell you the odds about certain events happening, or not. Too many kids are very serious about this rather than just realising it is just a game and so on.
We banned cigarette ads decades ago because of the realisation that such ads normalised and encouraged smoking. (And before somebody chips in with the note that smoking has not ceased. Yes it has not ceased. The aim was, and is, to decrease the amount of smoking and produce a social stigma. If it disappears few will lament its passing.).
Exactly the same reasoning applies to gambling ads. It will only encourage and normalise this speculative and non- productive behaivour.

We banned cigarette ads decades ago because of the realisation that such ads normalised and encouraged smoking.

That's an interesting point. I used to be a graphic designer, and I learned that designing an ad or any other graphic meant for public viewing is very tricky business. People generally ignore ads and do not respond to them by buying the product promoted. But of course an effective ad can increase sales and no doubt many cigarette ads do increase the sales and consumption of some brands of cigarettes. Anyway, here we are years after the censorship of cigarette ads, and people still smoke and get sick from smoking. Yes, the problem is not as bad as it used to be, but to credit censorship is not necessarily fair because other factors may have achieved the progress.

And with that, I've got to wonder why anyone is trying to change Unknown Soldier's mind, because clearly, it ain't happening.

Indeed.

Indeed you're not going to change my mind until you clarify what you're talking about. What did I say that is wrong?

 

[Millrat]

In Australia at the moment we are in the midst of a public debate about gambling ads on TV, radio etc.
These ads are appearing during daylight hours i.e. when children are watching them.
Many children can now tell you the odds about certain events happening, or not. Too many kids are very serious about this rather than just realising it is just a game and so on.
We banned cigarette ads decades ago because of the realisation that such ads normalised and encouraged smoking. (And before somebody chips in with the note that smoking has not ceased. Yes it has not ceased. The aim was, and is, to decrease the amount of smoking and produce a social stigma. If it disappears few will lament its passing.).
Exactly the same reasoning applies to gambling ads. It will only encourage and normalise this speculative and non- productive behaivour.

We banned cigarette ads decades ago because of the realisation that such ads normalised and encouraged smoking.

That's an interesting point. I used to be a graphic designer, and I learned that designing an ad or any other graphic meant for public viewing is very tricky business. People generally ignore ads and do not respond to them by buying the product promoted. But of course an effective ad can increase sales and no doubt many cigarette ads do increase the sales and consumption of some brands of cigarettes. Anyway, here we are years after the censorship of cigarette ads, and people still smoke and get sick from smoking. Yes, the problem is not as bad as it used to be, but to credit censorship is not necessarily fair because other factors may have achieved the progress.

And with that, I've got to wonder why anyone is trying to change Unknown Soldier's mind, because clearly, it ain't happening.

Indeed.

Indeed you're not going to change my mind until you clarify what you're talking about. What did I say that is wrong?

You pretended it was an interesting point - only to again, inject a personal anecdote, and then go on to ignore the rest of Tigers! post.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We banned cigarette ads decades ago because of the realisation that such ads normalised and encouraged smoking.

That's an interesting point. I used to be a graphic designer, and I learned that designing an ad or any other graphic meant for public viewing is very tricky business. People generally ignore ads and do not respond to them by buying the product promoted. But of course an effective ad can increase sales and no doubt many cigarette ads do increase the sales and consumption of some brands of cigarettes. Anyway, here we are years after the censorship of cigarette ads, and people still smoke and get sick from smoking. Yes, the problem is not as bad as it used to be, but to credit censorship is not necessarily fair because other factors may have achieved the progress.

And with that, I've got to wonder why anyone is trying to change Unknown Soldier's mind, because clearly, it ain't happening.

My arguments are just too good for that. Try to argue logically based on the facts, and you'll have the success I do.

Not wanting the success you have. You are free to be wrong.

 

[DBT]

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?

I don't know what you watch or whether you are harmed or not, but a sample of one is not significant. Plus self assessment is open to bias.

As you can see, based on a number of studies, watching violence can and does effect the psychological development of children.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

It's not that they aren't "suitable" for the general public or children. Rather it's just that the general public has a fairly strong consensus that they don't want to weather the risks of unwanted exposure to it in the course of public life. There is additional consensus that most people who have seen such as children agree that they didn't want and shouldn't have been exposed as children.

So, in the nature of keeping everyone's consent there as intact as possible, we need to at least put that behind a warning, and guarantee that children, who have no basis for understanding why such warnings exist, must traverse whatever gauntlet gives such awareness -- children can be expected to wait to see it until they demonstrate the capacity to really consent to see it.

At no point does this justify banning or removing the images unless they themselves are images whose production and distribution is a violation of someone's rights to privacy.

 

[DBT]

To state the obvious, parents are responsible for their children's welfare, upbringing and education, controlling what they watch and how it may effect them, which is censorship.

Censorship may have its place, but it can also be used as a tool of propaganda and state control.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If we consider any measure of control over content as "censorship", what is the point in discussing actual censorship? We literally having someone considering it moral to allow the exploitation of victims. It is so absurd, there is little reason to even try to counter the argument, as it is much less an argument as it is simply a ridiculous position.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps the nature and scope of censorship should be defined.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Perhaps the nature and scope of censorship should be defined.

Unknown Soldier defined it in the first sentence in this thread. So, it would seem for the sake of this discussion that would apply.

I'd define "censorship" as the effort to silence speech, written or oral, and to hide away images that are seen to be offensive.

He further states that this definition applies when the censorship is being done by those more powerful than those being censored, such as when government does it. So, things like being put on ignore on a bulletin board thread wouldn’t count but being jailed for disseminating child pornography would.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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?

You didn't answer my question.

I don't know what you watch or whether you are harmed or not, but a sample of one is not significant.

Anecdotes are used a lot as evidence to bring home the conclusions involved from large masses of data, and they can also serve as counter evidence that is unlikely to exist assuming the conclusion is correct.

Plus self assessment is open to bias.

Anything can be biased.

As you can see, based on a number of studies, watching violence can and does effect the psychological development of children.

Maybe, but you didn't address the issue of censorship as a means to correct psychological problems in young people. Besides, you didn't establish any problems in kids to begin with!

 

[DBT]

Perhaps the nature and scope of censorship should be defined.

Unknown Soldier defined it in the first sentence in this thread. So, it would seem for the sake of this discussion that would apply.

I'd define "censorship" as the effort to silence speech, written or oral, and to hide away images that are seen to be offensive.

He further states that this definition applies when the censorship is being done by those more powerful than those being censored, such as when government does it. So, things like being put on ignore on a bulletin board thread wouldn’t count but being jailed for disseminating child pornography would.

Elected governments may be given the authority by the electorate to keep certain things, hard porn, gore, etc, out of public view for the protection of children. They may do this without a ban (restrict access) or promoting political ideology, just common decency and building a society where these things are not in our face when we are in a public space, watching tv, etc.

 

[DBT]

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?

You didn't answer my question.

I don't know what you watch or whether you are harmed or not, but a sample of one is not significant.

Anecdotes are used a lot as evidence to bring home the conclusions involved from large masses of data, and they can also serve as counter evidence that is unlikely to exist assuming the conclusion is correct.

Plus self assessment is open to bias.

Anything can be biased.

As you can see, based on a number of studies, watching violence can and does effect the psychological development of children.

Maybe, but you didn't address the issue of censorship as a means to correct psychological problems in young people. Besides, you didn't establish any problems in kids to begin with!

You seem to have overlooked the answers that have been given, including quotes and links to studies that show the effect this material may have on children and the vulnerable.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Perhaps the nature and scope of censorship should be defined.

Unknown Soldier defined it in the first sentence in this thread. So, it would seem for the sake of this discussion that would apply.

I'd define "censorship" as the effort to silence speech, written or oral, and to hide away images that are seen to be offensive.

He further states that this definition applies when the censorship is being done by those more powerful than those being censored, such as when government does it. So, things like being put on ignore on a bulletin board thread wouldn’t count but being jailed for disseminating child pornography would.

For once I get a fair and honest appraisal of what I've been posting. Thanks Shad!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

• 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.''

You seem to have overlooked the answers that have been given, including quotes and links to studies that show the effect this material may have on children and the vulnerable.

I've read it all. What's the problem with those items on your list? They look very wishy-washy to me.

 

[DBT]

• 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.''

You seem to have overlooked the answers that have been given, including quotes and links to studies that show the effect this material may have on children and the vulnerable.

I've read it all. What's the problem with those items on your list? They look very wishy-washy to me.

How they look to you is irrelevant.

What they show is that children are emotionally vulnerable to images of hard core violence.

Nor does censorship necessarily mean an outright ban on this material, just limiting access to it. Parents may do it with filters on home computers, governments set rating on movies, etcetera.

 

[Millrat]

• 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.''

You seem to have overlooked the answers that have been given, including quotes and links to studies that show the effect this material may have on children and the vulnerable.

I've read it all. What's the problem with those items on your list? They look very wishy-washy to me.

• 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.''

You seem to have overlooked the answers that have been given, including quotes and links to studies that show the effect this material may have on children and the vulnerable.

I've read it all. What's the problem with those items on your list? They look very wishy-washy to me.

You’ve basically already determined those conditions are acceptable. Im not sure why you’d want more precise terms/definitions.

 

[Millrat]

• 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.''

You seem to have overlooked the answers that have been given, including quotes and links to studies that show the effect this material may have on children and the vulnerable.

I've read it all. What's the problem with those items on your list? They look very wishy-washy to me.

You’ve basically already determined those conditions are acceptable. Im not sure why you’d want more precise terms/definitions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Perhaps the nature and scope of censorship should be defined.

Unknown Soldier defined it in the first sentence in this thread. So, it would seem for the sake of this discussion that would apply.

I'd define "censorship" as the effort to silence speech, written or oral, and to hide away images that are seen to be offensive.

He further states that this definition applies when the censorship is being done by those more powerful than those being censored, such as when government does it. So, things like being put on ignore on a bulletin board thread wouldn’t count but being jailed for disseminating child pornography would.

For once I get a fair and honest appraisal of what I've been posting. Thanks Shad!

Do you even realize what you just agreed to?

 

[pood]

Perhaps the nature and scope of censorship should be defined.

Unknown Soldier defined it in the first sentence in this thread. So, it would seem for the sake of this discussion that would apply.

I'd define "censorship" as the effort to silence speech, written or oral, and to hide away images that are seen to be offensive.

He further states that this definition applies when the censorship is being done by those more powerful than those being censored, such as when government does it. So, things like being put on ignore on a bulletin board thread wouldn’t count but being jailed for disseminating child pornography would.

For once I get a fair and honest appraisal of what I've been posting. Thanks Shad!

Do you even realize what you just agreed to?

Sure, he said it’s bad to stop people from disseminating child porn. He’s said that all along.