OT 05/14/04 Is censorship a good thing?

[jmtjet]

Censorship is almost always politically motivated. I, personally, don't want someone else deciding what is or isn't good for me. I'll make my own misstakes thank you.

[Calpitor]

Perhaps it's just my suspicious nature but when I find omissions that have been edited out because a document has been censored I suspect I'm not getting the whole truth. Case in point? How about the Warren Commsion transcripts?

[Spooky Man G]

Ha, the ten commandments! Thou shall not kill unless its a non christian is more like it! Just look at the crusades, kinda threw out the whole ten commandments. Also, as Calpitor just mentioned:

Perhaps it's just my suspicious nature but when I find omissions that have been edited out because a document has been censored I suspect I'm not getting the whole truth.

Look at the Tonkin resolution. A fully loaded navy boat was patrolling in designated NVA waters with spy equipment to intercept enemy communication, blatantly breaking the rules. A Vietnamese craft approaches, the US boat shoots wildly, and boom, we are able to draft more people, and apply more weapons just short of nuclear weapons. When the evemt was portrayed as a major attack on the US. Too many others to mention.

[Tuttle]

Originally posted by jerryctx
How about censorship to save lives? That's the big issue in the US after 9/11 (although most of the "homeland defense" laws are a waste of effort, but that's a different issue).

I can see how that's an issue when using your definition of censorship, but I don't see how it's a problem when using mine. That sort of national security info tends to be owned by government agencies (who are choosing to keep it secret), or contractors to those agencies (who voluntarily agree to the secrecy as a condition of doing the work).

[Tuttle]

Originally posted by DELTREE
How about *SPAMMERS* should we not censor them?

No. They can advertise away, they just can't do it using my systems. If they want to call me and discuss rates, I'm happy to chat.

That does raise another thing which didn't occur to me before -- false and misleading advertising. But just like the defamation restrictions I don't have a problem with, that deals with stuff which is false and misleading and aimed at hurting people.

How about *TEL-MARKETERS* should we not censor them?

Same as spammers -- no problem with the advertising, just with their hijacking of my property to do it. For suitable consideration, I'll take their calls 24/7. Alternatively, they're welcome to stand just outside my front gate and read off their spiel; I won't complain.

How about *CHILD PRON.* should we not censor it?

The actual, thing, no doubt -- every act involved in producing it is illegal, and for good reason. Beyond that it becomes less clear cut. Arbitrary example: Ken Park -- adults depicted as 16/17 year olds. The US says yes, Australia banned it outright. I think the US got it right, even though I wouldn't see the film if it was available here.

[Spooky Man G]

Hey, Whats the difference between art and pronography? A government grant!

[DELTREE]

Calpitor,Warren Commission Report: you can get a 26 Volume report if you want to put out the $.
Take Care

[Sarrkazztic]

Warren Commission.....good call.....even if you can buy the document that does not mean its going to have the information that the government covered up.....

[BigFred]

Censorship forms part of the essential fabric of the capitalist society. Where would the modern businessman be if he didn’t have the ability to censor a critic, even when that critic was speaking the truth, if what was being said went contrary to his business interests.

Governments play a part in this by formulating laws, which permit courts to impose injunctions which server to silence these critics, under penalty of imprisonment for ‘Contempt of Court’ should the injunction be ignored.

The really astute businessman does not censor his critics, as this could show him in a bad light, rather he uses lackeys to do this, thus insulating himself from criticism, and having a scapegoat should public opinion be voiced against his enterprise.

Whether we support censorship or not, it is alive and well, here. BF

[DELTREE]

Let me give you the Dictionary meaning of:Censor and of Cover-UP
CENSOR, A person authorized to examine literature, plays,or other material and who may remove or suppress what he considers morally or otherwise objectionable.

COVER-UP, An effort or strategy designed to conceal something, such as a crime or scandal.

The Warren Commission was a COVER-UP in my mind, but was it
censorship; NO.

That's the way I see it.
Take Care

[usil]

Do we need censorship? Sure. Is it the publics right to know everything? I don't think so. In the cases of national security, censorship is a must. Perhaps US citizens don't feel the need because your country is not at risk of extinction. But if a spy in another country were to be uncovered, would you want that info made public? Or if there were aliens and they did land in farmer bobs back yard don't you think that would cause panic? In these cases, censorship must be upheld. There are many cases when censorship should not be used. A good free open press is important, until you get to a situation where someone can get hurt by your enemies.

[Calpitor]

Originally posted by DELTREE
The Warren Commission was a COVER-UP in my mind, but was it censorship; NO.

I'm not trying to create an argument with you but the original Warran Commission's transcripts were highly censored. Perhaps you're not old enough to remember what the documents looked like after their release. There were entire passages that were blotted out. If they had been simply cut out lace would have had more substance. The Warren Commission's finding were called a cover up due to degree they censored the transcripts plus other things such as the trajectory of the "magic bullet" and eye witness testimoney that didn't entirely agree with the Commission's findings plus... plus....