Is censorship moral?

[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.

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.

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it. It’s harmful to the freedom of those who would spread it. I happen to disagree. But I admit I’m not an expert on what harms the psyches of children and just have a layman’s opinion on the subject.

 

[pood]

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

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it. It’s harmful to the freedom of those who would spread it. I happen to disagree. But I admit I’m not an expert on what harms the psyches of children and just have a layman’s opinion on the subject.

I suspect he’s not an expert either.

In any case, I think DBT quotes some relevant studies showing the harm that this sort of thing can do, but I have not had a chance yet to read his links.

The larger point, though, is the obvious harm done to the children who are abused in the making of this material, which is incidental as to whether any harm is done to those viewing the end product. Unless Unknown Soldier wishes to deny that any harm is done to the children who are used in producing the porn. Does he?

 

[Shadowy Man]

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

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it. It’s harmful to the freedom of those who would spread it. I happen to disagree. But I admit I’m not an expert on what harms the psyches of children and just have a layman’s opinion on the subject.

I suspect he’s not an expert either.

In any case, I think DBT quotes some relevant studies showing the harm that this sort of thing can do, but I have not had a chance yet to read his links.

The larger point, though, is the obvious harm done to the children who are abused in the making of this material, which is incidental as to whether any harm is done to those viewing the end product. Unless Unknown Soldier wishes to deny that any harm is done to the children who are used in producing the porn. Does he?

I think he conceding that abusing the children to make the material was immoral. But then he stated that once that harm is done it is also immoral to censor the material made.

He can correct me if I’m mischaracterizing his position but he seemed pretty clear on it.

 

[pood]

I think he conceding that abusing the children to make the material was immoral. But then he stated that once that harm is done it is also immoral to censor the material made.

He can correct me if I’m mischaracterizing his position but he seemed pretty clear on it.

So he’s saying it’s immoral to make the material in the first place but it’s fine and dandy to profit off the same material by disseminating it? What an interesting idea. Someone could kill a celebrity and then while in jail profit off his crime by writing a best-selling memoir of it. Notice that prisoners who try to profit off their crimes by writing books about them from their jail cells are generally prohibited by law from this attempt at self-enrichment. But I guess those poor prisoners are being … censored. And that‘s immoral.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it. It’s harmful to the freedom of those who would spread it. I happen to disagree. But I admit I’m not an expert on what harms the psyches of children and just have a layman’s opinion on the subject.

I suspect he’s not an expert either.

In any case, I think DBT quotes some relevant studies showing the harm that this sort of thing can do, but I have not had a chance yet to read his links.

The larger point, though, is the obvious harm done to the children who are abused in the making of this material, which is incidental as to whether any harm is done to those viewing the end product. Unless Unknown Soldier wishes to deny that any harm is done to the children who are used in producing the porn. Does he?

I think he conceding that abusing the children to make the material was immoral. But then he stated that once that harm is done it is also immoral to censor the material made.

Let's suppose that is his position. It doesn't seem like that ends the harm since non-consensual distribution of this is going to put their image out there, put it in people's heads, retraumatize them if they come across such person aware of it or come across the image themselves. This is why I brought up child porn in the form of a NAMBLA pamphlet and revenge porn previously since they are non-consensual use of images in a sexual context.

Small tangent developed where Loren Pechtel eventually wrote: "I think this is just a matter of property rights. You have a right to yourself.
" Universal responded: "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."

What could "something" be? child porn in context. What could "other people" be? Perverts watching child porn in context. So by substitution, we get "Inherently owning sexually explicit images of yourself as a child does not open the door to violate pedo perverts thru censorship of the images (of course)."

I think he conceding that abusing the children to make the material was immoral. But then he stated that once that harm is done it is also immoral to censor the material made.

He can correct me if I’m mischaracterizing his position but he seemed pretty clear on it.

So he’s saying it’s immoral to make the material in the first place but it’s fine and dandy to profit off the same material by disseminating it? What an interesting idea. Someone could kill a celebrity and then while in jail profit off his crime by writing a best-selling memoir of it. Notice that prisoners who try to profit off their crimes by writing books about them from their jail cells are generally prohibited by law from this attempt at self-enrichment. But I guess those poor prisoners are being … censored. And that‘s immoral.

That is how it sounds.

 

[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!

Do you even realize what you just agreed to?

Please explain what you think I agreed to.

 

[Millrat]

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

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it. It’s harmful to the freedom of those who would spread it. I happen to disagree. But I admit I’m not an expert on what harms the psyches of children and just have a layman’s opinion on the subject.

I suspect he’s not an expert either.

In any case, I think DBT quotes some relevant studies showing the harm that this sort of thing can do, but I have not had a chance yet to read his links.

The larger point, though, is the obvious harm done to the children who are abused in the making of this material, which is incidental as to whether any harm is done to those viewing the end product. Unless Unknown Soldier wishes to deny that any harm is done to the children who are used in producing the porn. Does he?

I think he conceding that abusing the children to make the material was immoral. But then he stated that once that harm is done it is also immoral to censor the material made.

Let's suppose that is his position. It doesn't seem like that ends the harm since non-consensual distribution of this is going to put their image out there, put it in people's heads, retraumatize them if they come across such person aware of it or come across the image themselves. This is why I brought up child porn in the form of a NAMBLA pamphlet and revenge porn previously since they are non-consensual use of images in a sexual context.

Small tangent developed where Loren Pechtel eventually wrote: "I think this is just a matter of property rights. You have a right to yourself.
" Universal responded: "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."

What could "something" be? child porn in context. What could "other people" be? Perverts watching child porn in context. So by substitution, we get "Inherently owning sexually explicit images of yourself as a child does not open the door to violate pedo perverts thru censorship of the images (of course)."

I think he conceding that abusing the children to make the material was immoral. But then he stated that once that harm is done it is also immoral to censor the material made.

He can correct me if I’m mischaracterizing his position but he seemed pretty clear on it.

So he’s saying it’s immoral to make the material in the first place but it’s fine and dandy to profit off the same material by disseminating it? What an interesting idea. Someone could kill a celebrity and then while in jail profit off his crime by writing a best-selling memoir of it. Notice that prisoners who try to profit off their crimes by writing books about them from their jail cells are generally prohibited by law from this attempt at self-enrichment. But I guess those poor prisoners are being … censored. And that‘s immoral.

That is how it sounds.

I read it as it’s more an issue of priorities for him:

Similarly, of images existed of me being raped by some disgusting adult pig human, I would not be fine with those being shared around.

You could sensor those images but only if you had the power to do so. Censorship is the tool of the powerful and not necessarily the tool of the moral.

Trade and exchange in them drives the creation of more.

That might be true, but why not chop the tree down at its roots rather than trim is twigs? I say prosecute those who sexually assault people and leave voyeurs alone.

Ignoring that voyeurism (perhaps a bad choice of words) itself is also a crime.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it. It’s harmful to the freedom of those who would spread it. I happen to disagree. But I admit I’m not an expert on what harms the psyches of children and just have a layman’s opinion on the subject.

I suspect he’s not an expert either.

In any case, I think DBT quotes some relevant studies showing the harm that this sort of thing can do, but I have not had a chance yet to read his links.

The larger point, though, is the obvious harm done to the children who are abused in the making of this material, which is incidental as to whether any harm is done to those viewing the end product. Unless Unknown Soldier wishes to deny that any harm is done to the children who are used in producing the porn. Does he?

I think he conceding that abusing the children to make the material was immoral. But then he stated that once that harm is done it is also immoral to censor the material made.

Let's suppose that is his position. It doesn't seem like that ends the harm since non-consensual distribution of this is going to put their image out there, put it in people's heads, retraumatize them if they come across such person aware of it or come across the image themselves. This is why I brought up child porn in the form of a NAMBLA pamphlet and revenge porn previously since they are non-consensual use of images in a sexual context.

Small tangent developed where Loren Pechtel eventually wrote: "I think this is just a matter of property rights. You have a right to yourself.
" Universal responded: "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."

What could "something" be? child porn in context. What could "other people" be? Perverts watching child porn in context. So by substitution, we get "Inherently owning sexually explicit images of yourself as a child does not open the door to violate pedo perverts thru censorship of the images (of course)."

I think he conceding that abusing the children to make the material was immoral. But then he stated that once that harm is done it is also immoral to censor the material made.

He can correct me if I’m mischaracterizing his position but he seemed pretty clear on it.

So he’s saying it’s immoral to make the material in the first place but it’s fine and dandy to profit off the same material by disseminating it? What an interesting idea. Someone could kill a celebrity and then while in jail profit off his crime by writing a best-selling memoir of it. Notice that prisoners who try to profit off their crimes by writing books about them from their jail cells are generally prohibited by law from this attempt at self-enrichment. But I guess those poor prisoners are being … censored. And that‘s immoral.

That is how it sounds.

I read it as it’s more an issue of priorities for him:

Similarly, of images existed of me being raped by some disgusting adult pig human, I would not be fine with those being shared around.

You could sensor those images but only if you had the power to do so. Censorship is the tool of the powerful and not necessarily the tool of the moral.

Trade and exchange in them drives the creation of more.

That might be true, but why not chop the tree down at its roots rather than trim is twigs? I say prosecute those who sexually assault people and leave voyeurs alone.

Ignoring that voyeurism (perhaps a bad choice of words) itself is also a crime.

I agree with what you're saying. I also agree voyeurism isn't the best word for non-consensually utilizing an image of child sex abuse and retraumatizing the victim through constant awareness it is out there. I will add "chopping the tree down" is quite impossible in the real world but still worth minimizing and trimming the twigs is also worth doing as these are not mutually exclusive. In some countries, the crime of the sex acts has a steeper penalty than viewing the porn because both are doing harm but one is less and one is more harm. It's like saying that laws against stealing from murdered people's estates shouldn't exist because we should just stop murdering people. Nope, murder and thievery are both crimes and in the real world neither can be completely eliminated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The larger point, though, is the obvious harm done to the children who are abused in the making of this material, which is incidental as to whether any harm is done to those viewing the end product. Unless Unknown Soldier wishes to deny that any harm is done to the children who are used in producing the porn. Does he?

This is the relevant part. There's no particular reason to think kiddie porn is going to harm children who view it because why would they view it? It's the pedos that want to view it and if it harms them, so be it.

The issue is when there's a market there's a provider for the market--and that most certainly harms children.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ignoring that voyeurism (perhaps a bad choice of words) itself is also a crime.

Depends on the situation. You can have non-criminal voyeurism--some states do not make public nudity a crime and some others do not make it a crime if you're in a private space but visible from a public space. Watching such a person isn't a crime. There isn't really any way to spy on people at the local hot spring but if the terrain were more compatible it wouldn't be illegal to do so. It's BLM land, you're free to walk up to it in the right season (the area is off limits in the warm time for safety reasons) and so long as you respect the informal rules of hot spring nudity (don't go nude if there are only clothed people there) nothing's going to happen--but neither can you stop others from looking at you.

 

[TomC]

There's no particular reason to think kiddie porn is going to harm children who view it because why would they view it?

Oh yeah there is.

Seriously, you think that kids watching other kids have sex isn't going to impact them?
"Because why would they view it?"

That is dumber than

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it.

LOL--Shad, your reading incomprehension continues unabated. I never said anything about kids seeing child porn.

It’s harmful to the freedom of those who would spread it.

I never said that either, but now that you mention it, if somebody does get locked up for "spreading" child porn, then that's obviously harmful to their freedom. I'm not saying that that's good or bad--it's just a fact.

I happen to disagree. But I admit I’m not an expert on what harms the psyches of children and just have a layman’s opinion on the subject.

I feel the same way. All I can do is offer my opinion on whether censorship can safeguard kids.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it.

LOL--Shad, your reading incomprehension continues unabated. I never said anything about kids seeing child porn.

if it’s not censored from them why would they not see it? If Someone in a more powerful position than a child prevents a child from seeing it then that is censorship according to your definition and that is immoral.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it.

LOL--Shad, your reading incomprehension continues unabated. I never said anything about kids seeing child porn.

if it’s not censored from them why would they not see it?

I don't know if kids see kiddie porn or not, but I imagine a lot of kids do see it. For those kids who don't see porn, there could be a lot of reasons why they don't see it.

If Someone in a more powerful position than a child prevents a child from seeing it then that is censorship according to your definition and that is immoral.

I think that yes, censoring porn is immoral or at least a waste of time. Kids are much more sexual than what we want to believe. They masturbate, for example. Many of them grow up to be pornographers having first seen porn at a young age. So instead of blaming juvenal delinquency on images of kids that may be intended to be sexually stimulating, let's get parents in on the act of raising their kids. I believe that if parents teach kids about sex and its consequences, then that should go a long way toward decreasing sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy, and sexual assault. For example, I think that if a boy and a girl are sexually attracted to each other, then teach them that mutual masturbation is a good alternative to copulation.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it.

LOL--Shad, your reading incomprehension continues unabated. I never said anything about kids seeing child porn.

if it’s not censored from them why would they not see it?

I don't know if kids see kiddie porn or not, but I imagine a lot of kids do see it. For those kids who don't see porn, there could be a lot of reasons why they don't see it.

If Someone in a more powerful position than a child prevents a child from seeing it then that is censorship according to your definition and that is immoral.

I think that yes, censoring porn is immoral or at least a waste of time. Kids are much more sexual than what we want to believe. They masturbate, for example. Many of them grow up to be pornographers having first seen porn at a young age. So instead of blaming juvenal delinquency on images of kids that may be intended to be sexually stimulating, let's get parents in on the act of raising their kids. I believe that if parents teach kids about sex and its consequences, then that should go a long way toward decreasing sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy, and sexual assault. For example, I think that if a boy and a girl are sexually attracted to each other, then teach them that mutual masturbation is a good alternative to copulation.

So do you disagree with my reading comprehension or not? You say it is immoral and harmful to censor child porn. So children can see it. If we say it we shouldn’t censor it isn’t that saying that it is worse for them to be prevented from seeing than for them to see it?

If it were worse for them to see it then wouldn’t it be moral to censor it?

What I stated, though perhaps not explicitly said by you, is the logical conclusion of your stance. I recently repeated your definition and you indicated that was a fair assessment. Perhaps you want to redefine your term?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. He has stated that he thinks it’s more harmful to children to prevent them from seeing it than to let them see it.

LOL--Shad, your reading incomprehension continues unabated. I never said anything about kids seeing child porn.

if it’s not censored from them why would they not see it?

I don't know if kids see kiddie porn or not, but I imagine a lot of kids do see it. For those kids who don't see porn, there could be a lot of reasons why they don't see it.

If Someone in a more powerful position than a child prevents a child from seeing it then that is censorship according to your definition and that is immoral.

I think that yes, censoring porn is immoral or at least a waste of time. Kids are much more sexual than what we want to believe. They masturbate, for example. Many of them grow up to be pornographers having first seen porn at a young age. So instead of blaming juvenal delinquency on images of kids that may be intended to be sexually stimulating, let's get parents in on the act of raising their kids. I believe that if parents teach kids about sex and its consequences, then that should go a long way toward decreasing sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy, and sexual assault. For example, I think that if a boy and a girl are sexually attracted to each other, then teach them that mutual masturbation is a good alternative to copulation.

So do you disagree with my reading comprehension or not? You say it is immoral and harmful to censor child porn. So children can see it. If we say it we shouldn’t censor it isn’t that saying that it is worse for them to be prevented from seeing than for them to see it?

If it were worse for them to see it then wouldn’t it be moral to censor it?

What I stated, though perhaps not explicitly said by you, is the logical conclusion of your stance. I recently repeated your definition and you indicated that was a fair assessment. Perhaps you want to redefine your term?

And are we glancing over the fact here that much child porn, real or simulated, involves slavery, bondage, and death of those children? Should we let children see images that make them worry they will be forced into sexual slavery and abuse and be raped/killed by their own parents when they get to whatever age they see in that fucked up porn?

And that's not even starting on what it indicates when they find that on their parents' computer.

Just letting a kid see that at all is child abuse of a most fucked up variety.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So do you disagree with my reading comprehension or not?

I don't understand what you're asking here. How could I disagree with your reading comprehension?

You say it is immoral and harmful to censor child porn.

I think that censoring child porn does more harm than good. It's crazy to imprison somebody for having pictures!

So children can see it.

They might see it, but that's not what I'm advancing.

If we say it we shouldn’t censor it isn’t that saying that it is worse for them to be prevented from seeing than for them to see it?

No. I don't think it helps anybody to restrict what they see.

It seems that you might misunderstand what child pornography is. Child porn isn't kids seeing porn but sexual images of kids.

If it were worse for them to see it then wouldn’t it be moral to censor it?

If that could be demonstrated, then I might agree.

What I stated, though perhaps not explicitly said by you, is the logical conclusion of your stance. I recently repeated your definition and you indicated that was a fair assessment. Perhaps you want to redefine your term?

For a moment you quoted me correctly, but now you're messing up.

 

[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.

I've read a fair number of your posts. I don't find this assessment very credible.
Tom

For what it's worth, bringing children into the conversation is a game changer. The rules are different and the stakes are much higher.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So do you disagree with my reading comprehension or not?

I don't understand what you're asking here. How could I disagree with your reading comprehension?

You say it is immoral and harmful to censor child porn.

I think that censoring child porn does more harm than good. It's crazy to imprison somebody for having pictures!

Your original definition didn’t include imprisonment so you are adding information not originally stated. It may be crazy but that’s not what censorship necessarily entails.

So children can see it.

They might see it, but that's not what I'm advancing.

Sure, but it’s a logical consequence if you don’t keep it away from children that they will see it.

If we say it we shouldn’t censor it isn’t that saying that it is worse for them to be prevented from seeing than for them to see it?

No. I don't think it helps anybody to restrict what they see.

I understand but disagree.

It seems that you might misunderstand what child pornography is. Child porn isn't kids seeing porn but sexual images of kids.

I already defined what I said it means so there’s no misunderstanding.

If it were worse for them to see it then wouldn’t it be moral to censor it?

If that could be demonstrated, then I might agree.

I will defer to those who have pointed to the studies rather than opinions.

What I stated, though perhaps not explicitly said by you, is the logical conclusion of your stance. I recently repeated your definition and you indicated that was a fair assessment. Perhaps you want to redefine your term?

For a moment you quoted me correctly, but now you're messing up.

I’m not “messing up”. Im just trying to play out the logical consequences of your stance.

 

[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.

I've read a fair number of your posts. I don't find this assessment very credible.

You can imagine anything you wish. I should point out that it's an ad hominem to argue against what I say by arguing against me.

For what it's worth, bringing children into the conversation is a game changer.

Tell that to whoever brought up the issue of kiddie porn. (It was Shadowy Man.)

The rules are different and the stakes are much higher.

I think that it's far more important to teach kids and everybody else about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech than to threaten people with years in prison because they're looking at a picture of a nude 17-year-old girl. That way maybe we'll have a generation that is the first one that actually respects the Bill of Rights not to mention eliminates child sexual abuse by rooting out what really causes it.