Is censorship moral?

[Tharmas]

A similar system exists on Steam--games of an adult nature will only show if you go into the settings and turn them on.

Fnarr, fnarr.

So Dad has to ask his eleven-year-old to show him how to do it.

 

[steve_bank]

There are few limits today.

Back in th 90s there was a video game targeted for kids where you got points for rape.

Freedom of expression as a wide interpretation of freedom of 1st Amendment speech allows most anything. There is no constitutional freedom of expression.

Back in the 70s I recall in the days of 8mm films there were films for sale underground of alleged real 'snuff films' where women were killed on camera.

I watched a movie on cable years back called Hostel. People on travel get cught up in an Estern Eyrioen place where you can pay to torture and kill.

One scene had a naked woman hmging from her feet with her throat cut dripping blood on somebidy naked lying underneath. I was thinking some sicuppy had to tihink it up, another to write the script, and others to act. Today that is entertainment.

Of course Hollywood pandering for profit says if you don't like it don't watch it.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo rape scene. There are few limits today on expression.

Fun entertaining stuff aint it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Rape Scene - RapeLust

I forgot to ask you. Do you like anal sex? Full rape scene of Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Watch anal, brutal, crying, forced, movie scene, painful, rape, screaming, tied porn video in HD free.

rapelust.com

The solution was no restrictions. Now e we are seeing thereuls of wde open global ulimited speech and expression 24/7.

One of my favorite old Scifi movies is Forbidden Planet. An ET race developed the technology and an energy source such that anyone on the planet can go directly from thought to physical reality at any time.

In the end they unleashed unrestricted desires and hatred on each other leading to destruction of the race.

Prophetic?

Our experiment in unrestricted free speech and expression is just that, an experiment with an unknown outcome. We are our own lab rats.

An uncontrollable chain reaction.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

On the subject of censorship, there is a very significant difference between content tagging in an environment that allows pre-exposure filtration, and censorship.

I'm all for pre-exposure tag filtration, and putting a threshold on opt-in/opt-out.

Compare and contrast the popular furry porn site E621 to other services.

E621 allows pretty much ANY form of content, but some tags are automatically filtered for most users. After all, most users don't want to see art involving simulated violence or with images that depict imaginary minors.

There are clearly alternatives to censorship that focus on the consent of the viewer.

Compare this to FurAffinity, which does absolutely censor what users may post, banning the sorts of images that E621 allows albeit behind tag filters.

If you're going to use a lot of technical terms, then it's best to define them.

What's technical here?

What isn't?

"Tagging"? You've managed to function with the internet for at least a couple of years, you haven't heard of tags?

Oh sure--in two years I've become an expert on every term used on the internet.

"Filtration"? Sure seems like a common term to me.

"Pre-exposure"? I can't recall running into it before but the meaning is clear.

Everything else is simply a combination of these terms.

A similar system exists on Steam--games of an adult nature will only show if you go into the settings and turn them on. It could use a bit of improvement as it gives examples of games that meet it's various thresholds but if you don't know the game that doesn't tell you a lot. (And will not show if you're not logged in.)

Or in Google search--you will not get adult results unless you include at least one unambigiously adult term in your search even if you have safe search turned off. (And they do the same thing in Google Translate--but there you can't just throw in a filler. Good luck getting the dirty word for a penis.)

I'm not going down that rabbit hole. It might sound strange to you, but I sincerely want to sensibly discuss the issues relevant to free thought and the phenomenon of religious skepticism. Let the kids go play games in the schoolyard.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

On the subject of censorship, there is a very significant difference between content tagging in an environment that allows pre-exposure filtration, and censorship.

I'm all for pre-exposure tag filtration, and putting a threshold on opt-in/opt-out.

Compare and contrast the popular furry porn site E621 to other services.

E621 allows pretty much ANY form of content, but some tags are automatically filtered for most users. After all, most users don't want to see art involving simulated violence or with images that depict imaginary minors.

There are clearly alternatives to censorship that focus on the consent of the viewer.

Compare this to FurAffinity, which does absolutely censor what users may post, banning the sorts of images that E621 allows albeit behind tag filters.

If you're going to use a lot of technical terms, then it's best to define them.

Pick the word you need defined and ask about that rather than pretending any of the words I used are ambiguous here. Ask Google, first though.

No thank you. That's a rabbit hole.

We allow news agencies to broadcast images of killing, and I think that's good because killing is a real part of the world that we should face up to. I don't know of any evidence that these images of violence cause violence.

No, we don't generally. Or, news agencies don't. And they pretty universally notify viewers first before exposure to graphic, real violence. Generally it is deemed not contextual.

If that's true (see uncensored image below) then what good is that censorship doing? Is the world a better place if we disallow news agencies to broadcast images of killing?

Spoiler: Graphic violence

Further, it's not produced in a consumptive fashion. There's a difference between a timely informational report, and an indexed website where it's tagged like porn. Simulated material is an entirely different beast.

What do you mean by "consumptive fashion"?

Of course, some situations invite censorship too. Keeping a board topical is in the interest of all of its non-troll members and who cares bout the fucking trolls anyway?

That f-bomb of yours would be censored in most other forums. Would you approve of your being censored for that?

On those forums, if I went there, yes.

Oh--OK--right. I did ask, now didn't I?

Censorship therefore is not categorically immoral, but there are usually better alternatives available. Generally the question that must be asked is whether the behavior itself is either demonstrably off-topic or demonstrably criminal.

I suppose self-censorship is moral although in that case no real censorship takes place.

I see no relevance as to what some red herring that isn't a Scotsman has to do with the discussion.

I'd recommend that if you want to impress people with your cognitive abilities, then post clear arguments that support your position on the issue of censorship. Doing so would be much better than rambling on posting obscure terms.[/SPOILER]

 

[BH]

I think censorship is generaslly moral when it protects people from being hurt who have done nothing to deserve to be hurt. For example child pornography. A child did not choose to be in it, has done nothing to deserve to be in pornography and is harmed by it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think censorship is generaslly moral when it protects people from being hurt who have done nothing to deserve to be hurt. For example child pornography. A child did not choose to be in it, has done nothing to deserve to be in pornography and is harmed by it.

In what way do images of children harm children, and how does hiding those images protect children from harm?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think censorship is generaslly moral when it protects people from being hurt who have done nothing to deserve to be hurt. For example child pornography. A child did not choose to be in it, has done nothing to deserve to be in pornography and is harmed by it.

In what way do images of children harm children, and how does hiding those images protect children from harm?

Should I assume you don’t actually have children?

 

[TomC]

In what way do images of children harm children, and how does hiding those images protect children from harm?

This appears to be you asking how sexual abuse of children for commercial purposes could harm children.

Sorry if I sound a little sharp here. But I've seen so many people who's lives were trashed by childhood abuse, including but not limited to sexual abuse, that I get touchy on the subject. I can get really angry at the drop of a hat.

If you really don't understand the damage done by child sexual abuse then I'm not sure how to explain it. Commercializing makes it even worse by making it profitable and therefore more likely to go on, and get worse for the children involved.

I should shut up now before I get really honest.

 

[bilby]

I think censorship is generaslly moral when it protects people from being hurt who have done nothing to deserve to be hurt. For example child pornography. A child did not choose to be in it, has done nothing to deserve to be in pornography and is harmed by it.

In what way do images of children harm children, and how does hiding those images protect children from harm?

Should I assume you don’t actually have children?

You can also assume that he doesn't have empathy, humility, social intelligence, imagination, foresight, an ability to think things through, or much in the way of life experience.

Although, of course, many of those assumptions could be inaccurate, based as they are solely on his fairly limited posting history here.

He does have a bachelor's degree in Business Administration though.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think censorship is generaslly moral when it protects people from being hurt who have done nothing to deserve to be hurt. For example child pornography. A child did not choose to be in it, has done nothing to deserve to be in pornography and is harmed by it.

In what way do images of children harm children, and how does hiding those images protect children from harm?

Should I assume you don’t actually have children?

You can also assume that he doesn't have empathy, humility, social intelligence, imagination, foresight, an ability to think things through, or much in the way of life experience.

Although, of course, many of those assumptions could be inaccurate, based as they are solely on his fairly limited posting history here.

He does have a bachelor's degree in Business Administration though.

Which also allegedly included a physics course.

 

[steve_bank]

In the 60s there were pictures of monks in South Vietnam burning themselves to death in protest. The films are probabaly on the net today.

There was video in the news of combat taken by reporters. I recall a case where a mother saw her son get shot.

Why not show combat in the news today when people are killed?

Part of the answer to the conbat picture it is political.

The other part is empathy. One of those questions where if have to ask the question you will not understand the answer.

 

[BH]

I have a friend who was a Ranger in the First Iraq War. He took pictures and shown me some. I'm glad I never went to war or was caught in one. What I saw was horrible.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In what way do images of children harm children, and how does hiding those images protect children from harm?

This appears to be you asking how sexual abuse of children for commercial purposes could harm children.

It appears that you didn't answer the question. Please answer it. It's important that you do so if you wish to make a case for censorship.

Sorry if I sound a little sharp here. But I've seen so many people who's lives were trashed by childhood abuse, including but not limited to sexual abuse...

I am one of them. I was sexually abused by my mother. And like you, I tend to feel anger when I hear about anybody abusing kids sexually or otherwise.

...that I get touchy on the subject. I can get really angry at the drop of a hat.

Emotions like that can cloud your judgment and lead to immoral behavior of your own. The person who is morally and factually right is not the person who is furious but the person who has sound reasoning and a sense of fair play.

If you really don't understand the damage done by child sexual abuse then I'm not sure how to explain it.

Like I just explained, I do understand firsthand what it's like to be abused.

Commercializing makes it even worse by making it profitable and therefore more likely to go on, and get worse for the children involved.

What is "it"? Are you referring to sexual abuse or child pornography? The two are quite different.

I should shut up now before I get really honest.

There's no need for restraint--I'm fair game in this forum. You may curse me out, insult me, and even threaten me with violence--all with impunity.

But getting back to the topic, I simply want to know how the censorship of child pornography prevents child sexual abuse. I'm very willing to read what you have to say. If you don't know how censorship safeguards kids, then you may very well be wrong.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You can also assume that he doesn't have empathy, humility, social intelligence, imagination, foresight, an ability to think things through, or much in the way of life experience.

Although, of course, many of those assumptions could be inaccurate, based as they are solely on his fairly limited posting history here.

He does have a bachelor's degree in Business Administration though.

Which also allegedly included a physics course.

Shad, do you realize that you're agreeing with a person who threatened me with physical violence because I hold an opinion he cannot tolerate? So although he may get away with that along with his insults above, I have decided not to reply to any of his posts. I don't wish to encourage him in any way and neither should you.

 

[Millrat]

I think censorship is generaslly moral when it protects people from being hurt who have done nothing to deserve to be hurt. For example child pornography. A child did not choose to be in it, has done nothing to deserve to be in pornography and is harmed by it.

In what way do images of children being harmed, harm children, and how does hiding prosecuting people that trade those images protect children from harm?

Do you think that’s a sensible question?

 

[pood]

There's no need for restraint--I'm fair game in this forum. You may curse me out, insult me, and even threaten me with violence--all with impunity.

And yet no one has done any of that to you in this forum. But your perseuction complex is charming in a perverse way.

But getting back to the topic, I simply want to know how the censorship of child pornography prevents child sexual abuse. I'm very willing to read what you have to say. If you don't know how censorship safeguards kids, then you may very well be wrong.

He didn’t say the censorship of child pornograpy “prevents” child sexual abuse. This is more straw-packing from you, who is ever eely in your responses to others.

 

[pood]

You can also assume that he doesn't have empathy, humility, social intelligence, imagination, foresight, an ability to think things through, or much in the way of life experience.

Although, of course, many of those assumptions could be inaccurate, based as they are solely on his fairly limited posting history here.

He does have a bachelor's degree in Business Administration though.

Which also allegedly included a physics course.

Shad, do you realize that you're agreeing with a person who threatened me with physical violence because I hold an opinion he cannot tolerate? So although he may get away with that along with his insults above, I have decided not to reply to any of his posts. I don't wish to encourage him in any way and neither should you.

Bilby threatened you with physical violence? Post proof or retract. Maybe you won’t read this, because allegedly you have me on ignore, so I invite others to press the question.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think censorship is generaslly moral when it protects people from being hurt who have done nothing to deserve to be hurt. For example child pornography. A child did not choose to be in it, has done nothing to deserve to be in pornography and is harmed by it.

In what way do images of children being harmed, harm children, and how does hiding prosecuting people that trade those images protect children from harm?

Do you think that’s a sensible question?

I think that nobody has yet made a good case for the morality of censorship. If they do, then I may change my mind.

Allow me to post an example of the harm censorship can do. A woman I know told me that she took photos of her young kids naked, a very common practice. After having the film processed, she said she was warned by the developer that she could get into trouble with the law! Her perfectly innocent, harmless act could have resulted in her imprisonment. So how is that kind of censorship moral? Isn't it evil instead to bully a woman who only wanted to have fun with her children?

 

[pood]

It’s funny how you demand a yes/no answer from others witout being inclined to provide one yourself.

\

I think I've had enough of this. Welcome to Ignoreland.

When you put someone on ignore, aren't you censoring?

That was my point exactly.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

When you put someone on ignore, aren't you censoring?

No because nothing is censored. That childish garbage is still posted for anybody unfortunate to read it.