Is censorship moral?

[Unknown Soldier]

Saying a child is 'being used sexually' is not hard to grasp. It's quite clear, someone is having sex with a child, be it for personal gratification or commercial gain, ie, producing pornography.

OK. As long as you explain what you're talking about. I agree that sex with "kids" (people who are too young to responsibly decide to have sex), should not be allowed.

As for your false analogy, the comparison you tried to make has been explained.

And I'm left wondering what that explanation is. What exactly about the history of porn do you deny?

Now you engage with obsfercation and feigned incomprehension.

You ignored every item on my list. For your convenience I will post them here:

1. You need to argue clearly what porn is and why we should accept your definition of porn.
2. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.
3. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

 

[DBT]

Saying a child is 'being used sexually' is not hard to grasp. It's quite clear, someone is having sex with a child, be it for personal gratification or commercial gain, ie, producing pornography.

OK. As long as you explain what you're talking about. I agree that sex with "kids" (people who are too young to responsibly decide to have sex), should not be allowed.

The sentence ''children being sexually used or exploited'' is self explanatory. You know what 'child' means. You know what 'sex' means in context of an act of physical intercourse, and you know what 'used' or 'exploited' means within that context.

So what here needs to be explained?

As for your false analogy, the comparison you tried to make has been explained.

And I'm left wondering what that explanation is. What exactly about the history of porn do you deny?

Now you engage with obsfercation and feigned incomprehension.

You ignored every item on my list. For your convenience I will post them here:

1. You need to argue clearly what porn is and why we should accept your definition of porn.
2. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.
3. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

My definition of porn? You can look it up in a dictionary.

Here, I'll help you out;

Pornography:
''books, magazines, films, etc. with no artistic value that describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting:
a campaign against pornography
hard(-core) (= very detailed) porn
soft(-core) (= not very detailed) porn''

1. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.

I have already said that the issue is about exploitation of children. That children don't have the life experience to understand how they are being used or exploited, so it is not a case of an agreement between consenting adults.

Why do you keep overlooking this?

1. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

You should consider what is being said. Or are you suggesting that child porn harms no-one, not even the children?

 

[TomC]

It was most certainly not a censorship issue. Is it a censorship issue when someone takes a steaming turd on the floor of the store they leased, and they are evicted from their storefront tenancy when they refuse to clean it up?

So, can we agree that if someone who considers most of the opinions posted on IIDB steaming turds(there's lots of them) bought the server and shut down IIDB, that wouldn't be censorship?

Here's why I ask. I can't help but notice how subjective people tend to get about what is censor worthy and what is freedom of speech.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

It was most certainly not a censorship issue. Is it a censorship issue when someone takes a steaming turd on the floor of the store they leased, and they are evicted from their storefront tenancy when they refuse to clean it up?

So, can we agree that if someone who considers most of the opinions posted on IIDB steaming turds(there's lots of them) bought the server and shut down IIDB, that wouldn't be censorship?

Here's why I ask. I can't help but notice how subjective people tend to get about what is censor worthy and what is freedom of speech.
Tom

Here we generally do not allow hate speech about what the government "should" do to minorities. I've seen some absolute "gems*" from StormFront on FSTDT, and it was that site's contributions that ultimately drove me from the site because the fact is that reading the steady torrent of racism pouring out of that orifice was corrupting my brain, even if it was presented in context as fucked up.

The fact is, Cloudflare is the appendix of the internet, and even they flushed. You know this from the fact that Cloudflare leaves scam sites up, yet took that down.

It's like cakes. People will host Websites for Nazis, but people will not host Nazi Websites.

*Horrifying turds.

 

[TomC]

Here we generally do not allow hate speech about what the government "should" do to minorities.

That's what I'm talking about.

You're OK with hate speech as long as the targets aren't people you like. Otherwise, it's full tilt boogie. Censor their dumbassery!
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Saying a child is 'being used sexually' is not hard to grasp. It's quite clear, someone is having sex with a child, be it for personal gratification or commercial gain, ie, producing pornography.

OK. As long as you explain what you're talking about. I agree that sex with "kids" (people who are too young to responsibly decide to have sex), should not be allowed.

The sentence ''children being sexually used or exploited'' is self explanatory.

I have an idea of what you mean.

You know what 'child' means.

"Child" could mean a lot of things. The most common way I use the term is to refer to a person who has not yet reached full physical and mental maturity. Of course, different people reach "full" maturity at different ages, and some people due to physical or cognitive difficulties may never reach full maturity. Moreover, who is or is not a child varies with historical era and culture. For example, the Jews at one time were called "the children of Israel" although most of them were adults, of course. So "child" is a term that is not easy to define.

You know what 'sex' means in context of an act of physical intercourse...

I agree that sexual intercourse is sex, but unlike Bill Clinton, I see much else as sex as well. Such acts that may constitute sex include masturbation, sodomy, and fellatio.

...and you know what 'used' or 'exploited' means within that context.

Not really! I suppose sexual "use and exploitation" might involve sexual abuse and assault and/or profiting monetarily from a person forced to act sexually in some way.

So what here needs to be explained?

Everything you've said should be explained. If you want to post a good argument, then you have the responsibility to make clear what you say.

My definition of porn? You can look it up in a dictionary.

Here, I'll help you out;

Pornography:
''books, magazines, films, etc. with no artistic value that describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting:
a campaign against pornography
hard(-core) (= very detailed) porn
soft(-core) (= not very detailed) porn''

OK, but that's obviously very opinionated especially the assertion that a book, magazine, or film has no artistic value. Moreover, the idea that books, magazines, and films are porn if they are meant to be sexually exciting means that the same image, for example, is or is not porn purely based on what its creator was thinking!

1. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.

I have already said that the issue is about exploitation of children. That children don't have the life experience to understand how they are being used or exploited, so it is not a case of an agreement between consenting adults.

You'll need to provide evidence for the harm you're alleging here.

Why do you keep overlooking this?

1. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

You should consider what is being said. Or are you suggesting that child porn harms no-one, not even the children?

That's your argument for the alleged harm from porn? You ask a question?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In addition to the difficulties I mentioned in your other posts, what you're saying here is way too vague. What do you mean by "a child being used sexually"?

So let me summarize where your arguments need to be honed:

1. You need to argue clearly what porn is and why we should accept your definition of porn.
2. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.
3. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

We are differentiating simple nudity from sexual images.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying a child is 'being used sexually' is not hard to grasp. It's quite clear, someone is having sex with a child, be it for personal gratification or commercial gain, ie, producing pornography.

As for your false analogy, the comparison you tried to make has been explained.

Now you engage with obsfercation and feigned incomprehension.

Objection:

Images/video of such acts are pornography. The act itself is not!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pornography:
''books, magazines, films, etc. with no artistic value that describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting:
a campaign against pornography
hard(-core) (= very detailed) porn
soft(-core) (= not very detailed) porn''

Disagree.

Hard core--sexual acts are actually taking place.
Soft core--sexual acts are either implied (positions/actions consistent with a sexual act but the act itself is not visible and in reality likely isn't happening) or are suggested but not actually happening (say, a woman with her legs spread and a hand nearby but not touching.)

It has nothing to do with the level of detail. You can have hardcore on a potato camera and pixellated, you can have softcore in 8K.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OK, but that's obviously very opinionated especially the assertion that a book, magazine, or film has no artistic value. Moreover, the idea that books, magazines, and films are porn if they are meant to be sexually exciting means that the same image, for example, is or is not porn purely based on what its creator was thinking!

Few people other than politicians will have trouble telling them apart. (Politicians, however, tend not to understand that close-ups of genitals might have educational value. Specifically, this is normal, that is abnormal--see your doctor. Likewise, photographs of STD effects.)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In addition to the difficulties I mentioned in your other posts, what you're saying here is way too vague. What do you mean by "a child being used sexually"?

So let me summarize where your arguments need to be honed:

1. You need to argue clearly what porn is and why we should accept your definition of porn.
2. You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.
3. You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.

We are differentiating simple nudity from sexual images.

You are free to make that distinction, of course, but you may be shocked to realize that for many people "simple nudity" can be a very sexual image. Face it--porn is in the eye of the beholder, and censorship is in the fist.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

OK, but that's obviously very opinionated especially the assertion that a book, magazine, or film has no artistic value. Moreover, the idea that books, magazines, and films are porn if they are meant to be sexually exciting means that the same image, for example, is or is not porn purely based on what its creator was thinking!

Few people other than politicians will have trouble telling them apart.

I'd agree with you here if there is something objective to part. In fact, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to government interfering with the freedom of people to sexually enjoy what we call "pornography" is its inability to sensibly and consistently define what pornography is.

(Politicians, however, tend not to understand that close-ups of genitals might have educational value. Specifically, this is normal, that is abnormal--see your doctor. Likewise, photographs of STD effects.)

Why should we censor something that has no apparent educational value?

 

[DBT]

Not all "pornography" is the same.

 

[TomC]

Censorship is moral.
Sometimes.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Censorship is moral.
Sometimes.
Tom

Morality is a matter of opinion,
always.
Unknown Soldier

 

[DBT]

Not always.

 

[The AntiChris]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

 

[DBT]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

When someone is physically injured or mentally harmed.

 

[The AntiChris]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

When someone is physically injured or mentally harmed.

Physical injures are commonplace in, for example, sports. Most wouldn't view these occurrences as necessarily immoral.

I'd have thought that the assessment of what constitutes 'harm' is always subjective. If nobody considered X to be harmful (i.e. if nobody was of the opinion that X was harmful) it'd be difficult to see what the justification that X really was harmful might be.

 

[DBT]

Not always.

When, in your opinion, is it not?

When someone is physically injured or mentally harmed.

Physical injures are commonplace in, for example, sports. Most wouldn't view these occurrences as necessarily immoral.

So child exploitation and pornography may be compared to sport where the players are adults, know and understand the risks involved yet participate for reward, be it pleasure or money?

I'd have thought that the assessment of what constitutes 'harm' is always subjective. If nobody considered X to be harmful (i.e. if nobody was of the opinion that X was harmful) it'd be difficult to see what the justification that X really was harmful might be.

Are children harmed when they are being used to produce child porn? Is that subjective? Is it questionable? Is it tolerable or harmless in some circumstances?