EPTThe only place where censorship can (and does) legitimately exist in democracies is in matters of the Police and Military. This is because these particular state institutions are de-facto undemocratic, due to their basic functions; we do not (nor should we) vote for our favorite generals and police commissioners. We also do not want those particular 'texts' (schematics for nuclear weapons systems, ongoing criminal investigations) made public, for obvious reasons.
When is banning books okay? - Page 4
| Blogs > Pandain |
|
_-NoMaN-_
Canada250 Posts
The only place where censorship can (and does) legitimately exist in democracies is in matters of the Police and Military. This is because these particular state institutions are de-facto undemocratic, due to their basic functions; we do not (nor should we) vote for our favorite generals and police commissioners. We also do not want those particular 'texts' (schematics for nuclear weapons systems, ongoing criminal investigations) made public, for obvious reasons. | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
You should think about different perspectives and not just try to be the good guy. I say try, because your measures would be as democratic as putting billion of people under surviellance just to prevent an imaginary terror attack while terror attacks are probably one of the rarest causes of death ever. this is discussing your essay, not the book banning thing, which is totally irrelevant anyways since you have the internet almost everywhere in the world. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
However, the essay was only meant to be two pages, and I hit nearly three, so I was already going way over what I needed to explain for my essay; if I had written more, my professor will probably take points off. To explain my view to you, however: 1. The Anarchist Cookbook brought people together of similar interests. That website is pretty scary. It has probably promoted at least one or two crimes, or allowed someone to. If for instance they had not been brought together by the information in the book, then that information would have been spread across other websites and more difficult to find. I do think that even making crimes more difficult to commit is a good thing. I mean, you can't stop anyone from shooting people either, but you can control who owns a gun. And you should be able to control equally dangerous material that really no one should be using (how to rufi someone). The extra 30 minutes it takes to find information can be a deterrance, and it's not like this has backlash as I layed out it should only be used in specific ways. My professor was talking about a pamphlet that went around campus just for that purpose. It's the basis of my argument and thinks like that should be censored, not just in schools but everywhere. For the legality/morality thing, I only limited this to violent crimes. Because hopefully, we all accept that violent crimes like forced kidnapping, murder, and rape should be illegal anywhere and everywhere. I purposely left out other violent stuff like battery because I think that's up for debate. Your point about the relatively weak nature of public opinion is true, but also still irrelevant. If you can make a change through non-violent means, then you should do it through non-violent means. It won't be a post on r/politics, but instead a long campaign. And you'll find out if you really are as committed to the thing as just committing a violent act would be, because you have to constantly defend yourself. And that sort of thing should be encouraged. However, the second point is actually pretty weak in my opinion. It's true, but not a reason to ban a text. The main thing is the first point, and then the third point means it shouldn't be granted absolute protection. And I really don't mind the opening to be honest. Yeah quotes may be "cheesy", but I really liked it because a. It was a twist on a famous saying b. It pinpoints the question I'm trying to get the reader to frame c. I elaborate on it further It wasn't just like I couldn't think of something and then read my Introductions guide and chose option c. I don't know, but it didn't make me cringe, I swiftly transitioned out of it and I thought it read fine for the introduction. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On December 03 2013 12:11 LaNague wrote: your naive perspective on the subject makes your essay not worth reading. You should think about different perspectives and not just try to be the good guy. I say try, because your measures would be as democratic as putting billion of people under surviellance just to prevent an imaginary terror attack while terror attacks are probably one of the rarest causes of death ever. this is discussing your essay, not the book banning thing, which is totally irrelevant anyways since you have the internet almost everywhere in the world. My response is extremely limited in only one area where censorship can be permissible. | ||
|
_-NoMaN-_
Canada250 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:40 Ovid wrote: But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available? The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored. There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated. Morality has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you have a society that has become 'immoral', it has only become so by the actions and policies of the dominant political, cultural, and economic institutions (that is to say, governments, churches, and corporations), which are the same ones that would necessarily administer any censorship. A striking examples lies in the rise and fall of soviet communism in eastern and central Europe. When Czechoslovakia elected their first president after liberation, the man they chose was a writer who had been imprisoned by the regime as 'ideologically subversive'. That mans name was Vaclav Havel. I would recommend anyone to read some of his many essays on the subject of censorship; oppression, and the many ways the very fabric of society is torn by it. edited for grammar | ||
|
AiurZ
United States429 Posts
believing that any form of censorship is wrong/bad/etc. i think will eventually lead to irresponsible and dangerous things, but at the same time any time you begin to censor things you venture into similarly dangerous territory. | ||
|
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
| ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Reductive reason yes but it's kinda silly when people just say "nope, never" and not consider all the possibilities. | ||
|
stuzH
United States56 Posts
| ||
|
KaiserChuck
United States79 Posts
On December 03 2013 12:17 Pandain wrote: To explain my view to you, however: 1. The Anarchist Cookbook brought people together of similar interests. That website is pretty scary. It has probably promoted at least one or two crimes, or allowed someone to. If for instance they had not been brought together by the information in the book, then that information would have been spread across other websites and more difficult to find. Firstly, I would disagree with your initial statement of opinion: that the Anarchist Cookbook "brought people together of similar interests". If you are talking about the website promoting the book, then yes, perhaps. However, seeing as how the books have been out for decades, and there was no major publicity campaign on the part of a publisher, I would argue that the book itself was disseminated through networks of people that already shared common interests (underground political activists or revolutionaries, criminal organizations, etc.). This may seem a "chicken-and-egg" argument but we must be careful of making assumptions and presenting them as fact, especially as the basis for limiting citizens' rights. Ironically, the most instructive literature currently available on these topics is typically pulled from US Army field manuals. There is little point to banning commercial publications with ISBN registration, the information will still be out there. It is impossible to control. I do think that even making crimes more difficult to commit is a good thing. I mean, you can't stop anyone from shooting people either, but you can control who owns a gun. And you should be able to control equally dangerous material that really no one should be using (how to rufi someone). No, you can't. You can only control legal purchases. Do you see the difference? People who want something bad enough are going to get it. That's why prohibition creates black markets. There may be a few historical incidences of this that you could reference. One of the consequences of prohibition is ignorance. During alcohol prohibition, thousands of Americans died of ignorance: either attempting to mix up their own batch of homebrew booze, or drinking someone else's dangerous concoction. Today we have the same situation with pseudo-legal homebrew synthetic drugs and have kids dying on Bath Salts - also due to prohibition of their safer, but currently illegal, alternatives. Your average law-abiding citizen is not affected either way, because he will be following the rules anyhow. Even if he bought a book describing various methods of violence - he isn't likely to commit any of those acts because he already respects the law. The only people you are worried about are the types more likely to break laws against violence, correct? But if someone has the potential for violent crime, do you not also think they have the potential for theft or trespassing? If I'm plotting a murder, what's to stop me from illegally obtaining a text on how best to commit the crime? Do you not see the futility of this argument? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On December 03 2013 03:09 Pandain wrote: To ban or not to ban, that is the question. That is something prolific playwright William Shakespeare probably never would have said, but it remains extremely relevant for the modern century. Let's get rid of the low-hanging fruit. Your writing style is extremely pompous and full of unnecessary flourish. We'll get into your allusion to Hamlet and Shakespeare here in a moment, but first, read some Strunk & White before you get marked down by a proper grader in university for your writing. With that gone, let's go to the line-by-line. Your advocacy is at once self-defeating and ironic. You cannot critique the idea of banning books in favor of free expression at the same time as legitimizing the suppression of free expression for the thinnest of reasoning. Let's get into the 'dangerousness' of media. You claim that certain types of media should not be protected because you believe that some media can "[teach] someone how to commit an illegal act" and "increase the possibility of violent acts" as well as indicate that "utilizing violence to enact change" can be okay. You rely on a few assumptions:
| ||
|
ShiroKaisen
United States1082 Posts
Whether tis nobler the people are deaf To words from arbitrary works thee chose Or to take heed that people aren't best served Through judg'ment from an honors English student. | ||
|
3772
Czech Republic434 Posts
On December 03 2013 04:34 Pandain wrote: Will be excited to hear them. Also it wasn't high school, it was Honors College, but not that that would impact the strength of the statements anyway. I do believe that the only time books should be banned is when it more acts as a guide for violent acts(not just illegal ones imo); violent acts are almost always wrong in domestic society. There's no reason literary expression should protect guides to bombing and murder, why pamphlets on how to Rufi someone should exist, or other things. It passes the line of artistic expression and instead infringes on the physical status of others. You can make that argument against self-defense guides too. | ||
| ||
