Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

In your opinion when is censorship acceptable?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (21920points) 2 months ago

None needed!

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

cookieman's avatar

If the thing being censored is an immediate and direct threat to the safety of others.

elbanditoroso's avatar

As a rule, it isn’t useful (people find out) and it is a power thing to benefit the one doing the censoring.

That said, there are times where self-censorship makes sense.

You don’t need to discuss abortion with 4-year olds.

You may want to self-censor about how you are planning to murder someone.

And so on.

filmfann's avatar

Response moderated (Unhelpful)

Forever_Free's avatar

I can’t tell you.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

Quite frankly, when it’s just inappropriate. There is no hard fast rule.

canidmajor's avatar

Defining censorship may be necessary here. On Fluther, people often shout “Censorship” if their deathless prose is removed for not meeting community standards.
MTG wore a mask that said “censored” on it while speaking on national television.

“ cen·sorship
1.the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.“ is the dictionary definition.

So what is it for you, and the purposes of this Q, @SQUEEKY2?

If a newspaper does not print one’s letter to the editor, is that censorship? Or do you mean where parties conspire to prevent a speech/thought/concept to be silenced across all platforms of communication?

Demosthenes's avatar

@canidmajor Right. For example, death threats are illegal, so is taking down an online death threat “censorship”? If so, that is a form of censorship I support, as well as the removal of other illegal content.

“Censorship” is something that sounds bad, but there are obviously examples where we think it’s appropriate, such as not having explicit content in children’s programming. I think that has more to do with rules around target audiences and rules provided by networks and content platforms—in that sense, they all “censor” to some degree. They all moderate content and decide what’s appropriate in a given context and to a given audience.

And finally, as I’ve said 10 trillion times, I don’t support banning books. So that’s my complicated incoherent answer.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, I censored my 10 year old granddaughter the other day. She was watching a cartoon. I happened to be in room. It was profanity laced.
“Turn that off!” I snapped.

Blackberry's avatar

When people want to say the n word, f word, or t word on videogames all day.

They love acting like victims and being persecuted when they can’t use hate speech.

RayaHope's avatar

I think children should not be subject to certain words and pictures. I don’t want a two-year-old telling me to F-off. Children should be protected from that stuff but I know that is nearly impossible in many families.

hat's avatar

@canidmajor and @Demosthenes are correct that “censorship” needs to be defined. It also likely is a useless term without detailed context.

seawulf575's avatar

When it is done as a way to control people, limit opinions, and squelch a viewpoint you don’t like

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And done that way is acceptable to you??^^^^

seawulf575's avatar

Oops! Nope, I read it wrong. That is when it is UNACCEPTABLE.

Entropy's avatar

If we’re talking about actual govt censorship, it should be limited to rare situations where serious harm would result. It’s fine to censor details of an active military operation. It’s fine to prevent the release of the name of a whistleblower. Stuff like that.

But otherwise I am generally a free speech absolutist. Not only should we not have govt censorship, but PRIVATE censorship isn’t any better. Trying to take people jobs away because they said something offensive isn’t just overreacting, but it’s also COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. JS Mill made great points that we should let the heretic speak (he was writing in the 1800s so of course it was about religion) because, first, he might be right. But also, by preventing him from speaking, we may fall out of practice of how to think and reason responses to incorrect thinking. Engaging in the debate helps us, even when the other person’s statement is wrong because it clarifies our thinking.

To that, I would add that it also acts as a pressure release. A bigot who keeps silent because he fears consequences will see his resentment build to an eventual explosion. Better to let him talk, and then we can talk back to him and show him that he is wrong without destroying his life.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther