The Weimar Republic was destroyed because it gace free platform to all comers.
I fundamentally disagree with you, Corlindel. In fact, I think that extremely naive. Censorship sensibly applied is vital to a society. Though to extend that to think that I mean a society should 'survive on censorship', implying that is all it ever does, is very misleading.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
That is the mentioned exception of "private affairs and private life"
And this quoted issue is more about public and private interest in information than censorship.
But the right answer for that is not censorship but civics and, as last answer, civil and criminal courts.
We are all a product of our society, but we do not have to conform with lameless results of it. So, and again, censorship is not a solution but an handicap wich hides the problem.
__________________ Por minha Dama
«...et tu seras pour moi unique au monde, et je serais pour toi unique au monde...»
Last edited by Corlindel on Jun 23rd, 2004 at 09:43 PM
People get offended at taboos also. Everything that is a major taboo, offends people, however that may not necesseraly spread hateret, yet it is still cencored.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
But the question is WHO should apply the censorship? I understand that the majority in society (such as in a democracy) would apply the rule on the citizens, but does it mean it will deprive them of their freedom of speech and opinion?
As much as I detest groups like the Neo Nazis and the KKK they are still part of society. A good citizen obeys the laws of the state and also contributes by paying his taxes. As long as these individuals contribute to the commonwealth of the state they are allowed to speak their mind (even if their opinion is controversial or even discriminatory)
The government can only stop those kind of individuals is if they BREAK the law. For example things like murder, rape, theft, or any other crime that's the only time they can be arrested or prosecuted. Can the government censor their freedom of speech? Maybe regulated but NOT censor them. I know this sounds awful (and Trust me it bothers me) but there is nothing that can be done unless they break the law. So censorship in their case cannot work.
Censorship...we had lots of discussions about this in government class.
The thing is, in the US at least, what is considered obscene (and therefore should be censored) is very vague. In fact, the defition of obscenity is, "What would the average person, judging community values, find obscene?" That is verbatim what our teacher told us and what our book said. Now can anyone tell me what a load of crap that is? According to that, if ONE person gets offended by it, it can be censored. That's bullshit.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand that some censorship is usually needed, but that's only in matters of national security. But people's opinions...that shouldn't be censored. If someone gets offended by what they read/watch on TV/hear on the radio, well, too bad. No one's making them read it/watch it/listen to it, they are of their own choice.
Me, I don't worry about offending people. I just speak my mind and oh well if someone doesn't like what I say.
If freedom of speech incites hate or violence I think that is a good cause for censorship. I don't think they have that law in the US but they certainly have it in belgium. You can have any opinion you want, but you can't spread stuff that will incite hate, violence or rascism. If that deprives ppl of freedom of speech too bad for them.
As to your question about who determines censorship in belgium it is determined by law so in theory it is the majority who determines censorship, but hardly anyone cared about it in belgium until some extreme-right party organizations got convicted for spreading rascism.
Then ppl (and only a small portion) started to care.
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
Actually, there are censorship laws against speech that incites violence in the US. It's called 'fighting words', and basically what it means is if someone goes out and says "Go kill so-and-so people!" and someone actually does it, then the person who said that in the first place can be held responsible. Another little thing I learned in government class (yes, I loved that class).
Democracy is NOT the tyranny of the majority! That is mob rule, not representative government. One of the roles of such government is tro PROTECT minorites.
Incitement to racial hatred is something worth censoring., People have, and will, die if you do not. Some messages MUST be opposed by liberal democracies via means of legislation. TO say we should not because people should be convinced by argument is akin to saying we should have no laws, people should just be persuaded to act in the right way. It doesn't work- society must sometimes be forced.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Hmmm censorship? I suppose it's like anything in life it has its place but a balance has to be found. Too much censorship and there will be oppression, too little and things will spiral out of control in to chaos.
If everyone had their own way everyone else would follow them but people have the right to their individual views and beliefs so that could never happen.
Governments/societies usually have laws that try to produce a common ground in which everyone can have their say without being threatening and not feel threatened for what they believe.
This is what censorship is for!
In my opinion however censorship is quite aften taken too far in the name of political correctness (but hey that what I believe and it my right to believe that so there! )
Personaly I have my own values, taken from my upbringing by my parents and from what I've learnt in life. Because of this, where my children are concerned I have my own form of censorship - what they can and cant do/say ect. This is to protect them while they are young and vulnerable. When they are older I will not stop them from deciding what they want to believe, I will only guide/advise them. Is that wrong?
NO AND I WILL BE EXTREMELY OFFENDED BY ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE!!!!! (joke... )
KMC Community Forums
Jun 23rd, 2004 09:15 PM
)
(joke... 
