I definitely think that the intent of censorship is moral if it is censoring things which can cause us harm, but realistically, is there really much out there that will harm us if we only view it?
Seriously, some censorship is for national security. An issue like this comes up when the president refuses to make "sensitive" material available. The check on the president's power is that a Congressional committee asks to review the material behind closed doors. The federal courts also may get involved.
I have an unlisted telephone number -- if someone wanted to publicize it, I might go to court for an injunction. (Now I know that this is called an equity case.)
News media do not share every letter to the editor or all feedback from viewers/listeners. Even in an ideal world with endless blocks of air time or newspaper pages, not every opinion would be publicized. We're free to hold stupid opinions. Doesn't mean that these opinions deserve an airing. They won't hurt us, but they don't contribute to civil discourse.
Ad hominem attacks don't contribute to civil discourse. The news/talk people speak mostly about personalities, straw men, and red herrings. They get air time because they attract audiences which in turn attracts commercial sponsors.
Rush Limbaugh charges "confiscatory rates" (his words) for commercials. This is an example of 10% news and 90% entertainment (I picked numbers out of the air).
Of course, Jalaj is right on when the intent of censorship is moral, except -- Some day you'll be parents and will "censor" what your children see and hear. We adults process events through enormous previous experiences. Children need to be protected from age inappropriate material.
Parenting is learning process, and some of us do a poorer job than others.
Haha this video is great.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the intent of censorship is moral if it is censoring things which can cause us harm, but realistically, is there really much out there that will harm us if we only view it?
Heah! This video is really rulb!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, some censorship is for national security. An issue like this comes up when the president refuses to make "sensitive" material available. The check on the president's power is that a Congressional committee asks to review the material behind closed doors. The federal courts also may get involved.
I have an unlisted telephone number -- if someone wanted to publicize it, I might go to court for an injunction. (Now I know that this is called an equity case.)
News media do not share every letter to the editor or all feedback from viewers/listeners. Even in an ideal world with endless blocks of air time or newspaper pages, not every opinion would be publicized. We're free to hold stupid opinions. Doesn't mean that these opinions deserve an airing. They won't hurt us, but they don't contribute to civil discourse.
Ad hominem attacks don't contribute to civil discourse. The news/talk people speak mostly about personalities, straw men, and red herrings. They get air time because they attract audiences which in turn attracts commercial sponsors.
Rush Limbaugh charges "confiscatory rates" (his words) for commercials. This is an example of 10% news and 90% entertainment (I picked numbers out of the air).
Of course, Jalaj is right on when the intent of censorship is moral, except --
Some day you'll be parents and will "censor" what your children see and hear. We adults process events through enormous previous experiences. Children need to be protected from age inappropriate material.
Parenting is learning process, and some of us do a poorer job than others.
Thanks for the feed back
ReplyDelete