106627bg wrote:I am extremely opposed to censorship. That said there are some situations where it may be acceptable and/or necessary for censorship to exist. An example of this would be pornography at school. It's distracting and infringes on other's rights to feel comfortable. Outside of a private institution (who can decide their own rules) and various other settings like school, it is morally wrong to filter someone's access to information. In short, I don't care if a company monitors their employees Internet usage, that's their issue, not mine. If a country on the other hand censors ideas they consider offensive or dangerous, it should be a crime. Progress is only possible through the dissemination of ideas and concepts regardless of how big-brother or any other figure views those ideas. Some of the greatest achievements of humanity (the foundation of the US, scientific ideas such as evolution etc...) have been contrary to the culture and ethics of the government in power at the time. People need to realize that moral ideas and ethics are subjective.
Also, this is my first post so please be nice .
106627bg wrote:People need to realize that moral ideas and ethics are subjective.
106627bg wrote:Also, this is my first post so please be nice .
106627bg wrote:An example of this would be pornography at school. It's distracting and infringes on other's rights to feel comfortable.
Vulpine wrote:or China, which is gung-ho about censorship?
Vulpine wrote:Ethical subjectivism/relativism grants positive sanctions to all beliefs. Ted Bundy fancied himself a subjectivist in order to ethically justify his actions, and we'd have no right to judge him if morals and ethics were subjective. That might be a bit extreme, though. What about cultures that subjugate women, or China, which is gung-ho about censorship?
It's a scary, and very slippery, slope.
orwell84 wrote:So where do we draw the line? Does your eating lunch violate my right to eat whatever I want? After, if I want to eat your lunch, I should be able to eat it. Also, schools censor swearing and "offensive" messages on apparel. Is that necessary for a peaceful school environment?
On a more temporally applicable note, does the right of a corporation to sell insurance to whomever it pleases violate the public's right to health care? Can Congress's power to "provide for the general welfare" trump corporate rights to property? This really doesn't have much to do with censorship, but it also asks the question of where the line is drawn between reasonable and unreasonable restrictions of rights.
Goatboy wrote:Personally, I...fuck...little kids
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests