BSG Philosphical Question of the Year

[1Nivek1]

In a play on PhiloposherJedi's weekly posts and "of the year", cause I don't have that kinda effort:

"Does running a BSG forum make one more sympathetic to the idea of censorship?"

[Osprey]

for all our sakes i sure hope not!
:-)

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

Hi-larious! :D

It's not so much "censorship" as making sure people behave in a mature way, even when faced with a heated argument.

[Shane]

I am very confused...

[Osprey]

i'm presuming this whole thing is in reference to the "flamewar" 'twixt the pro-cally and pro-tory "factions" ...

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

It was more of a heated discussion than a flamewar, since there were no personal attacks.

The discussion could've gone to the dark side, but it didn't... which itself was pretty cool, given that there was little to no administrator/moderator intervention there. :D

[Osprey]

it's almost like we have adults posting here or sumtin' ...
:-)

[ShadowEnigma]

it's almost like we have adults posting here or sumtin' ...
:-)

Huh? Where? :p

[Jonathan]

To be the first to answer the question leaving no uncertainty to what the poster means here I go.

I firmly, completely, and totally believe and support censorship. This is an odd position for a librarian and public official to take. However, I believe parents and legal guardians are best able to determine what their children and those they care for interact with.

As such, I believe censorship should be practiced unless parents choose to opt out. Some things in the world really are black and white. Censorship addresses those areas.

Do we need to witness a hanging in graphic detail? How about sexual activity? Cursing? Coming of age practices in some African tribes where boys are suspended from rafters by their groins? I could go on and on and on, but won't, because my point has been made and it will swiftly be refuted.

More often than not it is safer to err on the side of caution (censorship). We can always uncensor but once something is interacted with it is very difficult, if not impossible, to censor those experiences. They remain in memories, in feelings, and thoughts.

That said, it is necessary to also take into account the community and one's position in it. As a librarian I do not censor. It is not part of my job and it is not my place. Some communities are more accepting of "censorship" whereas others are not. My home town prefers to censor quite a bit in certain areas whereas some online communities may be more open about some topics.

It all comes down to knowing the audience and putting oneself in that audience to determine if something appears to be acceptable.

[1Nivek1]

Well, the thread was just a joke, and was in reference to the explosion of responses in regards to Cally's death. I thought it might be a nice comic relief to all those who were taking the "morality" of the storyline quite serious.

But this wouldn't be a BSG forum unless the thread took a hard right turn, so.....


However, I believe parents and legal guardians are best able to determine what their children and those they care for interact with.

Well, I think when one thinks of "censorship", they attribute it to censorship from the public, not children. And as far as internet community rules, the term is typically "moderated".


I firmly, completely, and totally believe and support censorship.

Well, I know a few founding fathers who would disagree with you, not to mention the 1st amendment.


This is an odd position for a librarian and public official to take.

Seriously ?! Government is the one entity that adores censorship. And libraries are notorious in the past for censoring books like Catcher in the Rye.

More often than not it is safer to err on the side of caution (censorship). We can always uncensor but once something is interacted with it is very difficult, if not impossible, to censor those experiences. They remain in memories, in feelings, and thoughts.

Well, if one decides that viewing something can "harm" another, then who decides what is harmful?. A public official perhaps? Someone more intelligent than me who can see how my small mind can't handle such things? There is a famous quote on the idea of erring on the side of caution:

"Those that would give up liberty to purchase temporary safety, derserve neither liberty nor safety"


That said, it is necessary to also take into account the community and one's position in it. Some communities are more accepting of "censorship" whereas others are not.

And have you ever noticed it usually results in humiliating experiences for the community? Think of the Scopes-Monkey trial -- That certianly helped Tennessee's image in the union. In my experience, relying on a community's conventional wisdom is definatly not a good idea. And why should my moronic neighbors get to choose what I view. So I have to move to Vermont to read "Lolita" just because I live in BackwardsVille, US?This is why we have a federal bill of rights.

Censorship is by definition a person who views something and deems that someone else cannot "handle" it. I can think of two reasons for that rational here.

1.national security
2.propaganda

On point 1...it's abused to no end. Nixon would have declared this and gotten away with Watergate had the moron not taped all his conversations. But, there are certainly some things where this qualifies...

On point 2...Every history I've ever read leads to propagandists censoring propaganda. Instead of fake news, you get another version of fake news.

Neither one of those refer to gratuiotous sex or violence.


Do we need to witness a hanging in graphic detail? How about sexual activity? Cursing? Coming of age practices in some African tribes where boys are suspended from rafters by their groins?

Well, Nixon would argue I didn't need to know he broke into the Watergate hotel....Do I need to see the above mentioned things, maybe not, in the sense of "need", but if I chose to; what person has the right to tell me I cannot?

And in regards to children, I remember watching around the nation, and in classrooms (as a 5th grader) of smart bombs blowing away buildings. Even in your last quote you add the caveat of graphic detail to "hanging", and then everything else is sex and cursing. Seriously, why do people think a child's mind is ruined by pornography, but can handle a little gratuitous violence every now and again?

Do you think at 11, I was too dumb to realize those buildings and tanks didn't have people in them? And do you really think I wasn't staring at some girl's a** in English class?

So much for "comical relief"....

[JDS]

I pretty much stand against censorship categorically. As far as I'm concerned, censorship should exist to save lives (for example, not reporting the location of military operations) and nothing else.

[Jonathan]

I must begin by apologizing for taking so long to reply. My reply won't be as in depth but it will skip across your remarks. I made my post to spur discussion amongst others while making my stance known.

In regards to the 1st Amendment you'll note the Freedom of Speech does have many limitations. The Supreme Court has upheld limitations time and time again.

Your remark about libraries censoring isn't accurate. School libraries censor but public libraries are forbidden, by law, from censoring. Naturally there are ways around that but that isn't technically censoring. Only so much money in the budget to buy materials.

You will be hard pressed to find a public library in modern America that censors and doesn't get into legal trouble. If you do find any please let me know because it is of professional interest to me.

In regards to your statement about your small mind, I hope it was a facetious statement because you clearly are intelligent, I call on Sir Hobbes and Leviathan. Without an overall authority imposing order each person will take care of themselves to the detriment of everyone else. This, for me, holds true in censorship. We need someone else to make the determination for us. Too often in modern society the emphasis is placed on individual and not on group. It is important to adopt an utilitarian approach so that the greatest good is done for the greatest number of people.

Regarding Scopes I have to say that Tennessee was no worse off from it than before. Did they ever have a really good reputation? Yes, take that Tennessee. This Yankee just burned you! :P (my sympathies to all who live in Tennesse, no real malice was intended).

As to Nixon, I agree that we didn't need to know what is on those tapes. I don't condone the break in but nor do I condone the revealing of the content from the tapes. Keep in mind that Nixon was cleared of all charges in a presidential pardon.

You enter an interesting place by referencing my "graphic detail" statement because I would argue, and so should you, that all hanging is graphic thereby making the "graphic detail" statement redundant. That would have poked a major hole in what I had said.

Anyway, I don't believe there is a need for children to be exposed to graphic violence, ooh I did it again I love poking fun at myself, or sex. In America we stem from a strong religious history and that, I argue, is why we feel okay showing violence but not sex. I actually think we should clamp down on both. This is where one argues how making something forbidden draws attraction to that something and entices people to interact with the forbidden.

If I say you can't read Huck Finn because it uses the slur form of the Dutch Nighar (that's a historical term applied to define the first African slaves brought to America by the Dutch) you then go to read Huck Finn. However, this is a poor example as I argue that Clemens' usage is not done in any negative way. It is simply a tool to provide correct setting and character. This is where someone punches holes by showing that I am willing to compromise on the issue, or flip-flop, and if I'll compromise on this why not on anything else.

Your statements about being 11 are similar to ones used by people who believe children should be tried as adults for certain crimes (murder, rape, etc). That's an interesting dichotomy. In fact it is just like the dichotomy where often people who are against capital punishment are for abortion. Two sides of the same coin, murder is murder of course this is an assumption on my part that not everyone agrees with. Anywho, that's the philosophical point I've learned in my studies.

I don't claim to be a philosophical expert but minoring in it at college has helped me a bit. I do appreciate, seriously, this discussion. I must say that I don't mean anything I've said in a negative way and hope nobody takes it as such. I just really enjoy a good discussion. Ask Shane if you don't believe me. He and I used to debate all the time in college. Lots of fun.

Well, the thread was just a joke, and was in reference to the explosion of responses in regards to Cally's death. I thought it might be a nice comic relief to all those who were taking the "morality" of the storyline quite serious.

But this wouldn't be a BSG forum unless the thread took a hard right turn, so.....



Well, I think when one thinks of "censorship", they attribute it to censorship from the public, not children. And as far as internet community rules, the term is typically "moderated".



Well, I know a few founding fathers who would disagree with you, not to mention the 1st amendment.



Seriously ?! Government is the one entity that adores censorship. And libraries are notorious in the past for censoring books like Catcher in the Rye.



Well, if one decides that viewing something can "harm" another, then who decides what is harmful?. A public official perhaps? Someone more intelligent than me who can see how my small mind can't handle such things? There is a famous quote on the idea of erring on the side of caution:

"Those that would give up liberty to purchase temporary safety, derserve neither liberty nor safety"



And have you ever noticed it usually results in humiliating experiences for the community? Think of the Scopes-Monkey trial -- That certianly helped Tennessee's image in the union. In my experience, relying on a community's conventional wisdom is definatly not a good idea. And why should my moronic neighbors get to choose what I view. So I have to move to Vermont to read "Lolita" just because I live in BackwardsVille, US?This is why we have a federal bill of rights.

Censorship is by definition a person who views something and deems that someone else cannot "handle" it. I can think of two reasons for that rational here.

1.national security
2.propaganda

On point 1...it's abused to no end. Nixon would have declared this and gotten away with Watergate had the moron not taped all his conversations. But, there are certainly some things where this qualifies...

On point 2...Every history I've ever read leads to propagandists censoring propaganda. Instead of fake news, you get another version of fake news.

Neither one of those refer to gratuiotous sex or violence.



Well, Nixon would argue I didn't need to know he broke into the Watergate hotel....Do I need to see the above mentioned things, maybe not, in the sense of "need", but if I chose to; what person has the right to tell me I cannot?

And in regards to children, I remember watching around the nation, and in classrooms (as a 5th grader) of smart bombs blowing away buildings. Even in your last quote you add the caveat of graphic detail to "hanging", and then everything else is sex and cursing. Seriously, why do people think a child's mind is ruined by pornography, but can handle a little gratuitous violence every now and again?

Do you think at 11, I was too dumb to realize those buildings and tanks didn't have people in them? And do you really think I wasn't staring at some girl's a** in English class?

So much for "comical relief"....

[1Nivek1]

In regards to the 1st Amendment you'll note the Freedom of Speech does have many limitations. The Supreme Court has upheld limitations time and time again.


national sec., & things that aren't really speech ('inciting a riot'), etc. Those are common sense.

Your remark about libraries censoring isn't accurate. School libraries censor but public libraries are forbidden, by law, from censoring. Naturally there are ways around that but that isn't technically censoring. If it's someone intervening, it's still censorship, regardless of the "technicality". There are always technicalities.

You will be hard pressed to find a public library in modern America that censors and doesn't get into legal trouble.Well, if people are getting into legal trouble, then one would suspect at least some of them are censoring.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/challengesinitiator.cfm

Without an overall authority imposing order each person will take care of themselves to the detriment of everyone else. This, for me, holds true in censorship. But other people can avoid their "detriment", by not viewing/reading a censored item. No one argues that safeguards for "choice" shouldn't (and aren't) in effect. I can see the point of that quote in the form of the tangible, but not ideas. And I do believe that people who think an idea can hurt someone (marxism, et. al), view others as small-minded simpletons, contrary to what the 1st Amendment was written for.

We need someone else to make the determination for us. Too often in modern society the emphasis is placed on individual and not on group. It is important to adopt an utilitarian approach so that the greatest good is done for the greatest number of people.See now, that sounds eerily like every dictator/despot in modern history. The American emphasis on individual liberty was unique in the 20th century. Communism and Nazism both centered on the loss of individual rights for the advancement of the greatest number (the state). In a democracy, this is often refered to as "the tyranny of the majority."

Regarding Scopes I have to say that Tennessee was no worse off from it than before.But the point is, what if YOU had lived in Tennessee. You should just be required to move? You're not protected by the federal bill of rights?

As to Nixon, I agree that we didn't need to know what is on those tapes. I don't condone the break in but nor do I condone the revealing of the content from the tapes. Keep in mind that Nixon was cleared of all charges in a presidential pardon.He did a criminal (and not a subjective idea here, but flat-out criminal) act. Ford pardoned him as a favor, and possibly to stop the bleeding. This does not clear him of anything (except a trial & prison). He did it. No if-ands-or-buts. The tapes were screened for sensitive matters, but were ultimately released and entered public record through Congress --> don't kid yourself, if those tapes had not existed, Nixon would never have been implicated. And this is the problem with giving someone the right to censor. THEY WILL ALWAYS ABUSE IT!

Good Lord, look at Putin these days...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya_assassination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

Putin legally has the right according to "his" intrepretation of the Constitution. He will claim national security. He will be cleared of all charges. Is he doing it out of just being a general, evil, b*st*rd? No, he believes in the sacrifice of the few for the good of the many.

You enter an interesting place by referencing my "graphic detail" statement because I would argue, and so should you, that all hanging is graphic thereby making the "graphic detail" statement redundant. My point was that it seemed to be a Freudian slip. That is, sex=bad, violence=okay, graphic violence=bad.

I actually think we should clamp down on both(sex+violence). This is where one argues how making something forbidden draws attraction to that something and entices people to interact with the forbidden.Well, the beauty of the position is that it is an impossible one to hold. Sex and Violence I think are are two biggest foundations in our GDP.:p You'll never break it, and the more one squeezes, the more it just oozes out. BUT, people will always use sex and violence as their reasons for the need for censorship, and then go ahead and ban To Kill A Mockingbird, and then drive over to their mistress' house, or go do meth with a gay hooker.


Your statements about being 11 are similar to ones used by people who believe children should be tried as adults for certain crimes (murder, rape, etc). That's an interesting dichotomy. .

Well, you are right in that I don't think an 11 year old should be executed, so in that sense I hold a bit of a dichotomy. But that is more consequences of ones actions, whereas censorship is more "you are denied". In other words, I don't believe it is the dichotomy you suggest in the sense that someone should face consequences or retribution for playing a violent video game.

I believe people, at even a young age, are capable of digesting information responsibly. Those who cannot usually don't seek out whatever the material is anyway. I can read the word "n*gger" in Huck Finn, and understand the context. I can view video footage of WWII and understand I just saw a soldier's body ripped in half by a mortar shell. I can read Karl Marx and understand his views on socialism and capitalism. None of these things harm me.

Concern is from someone who thinks I would be harmed. And like I said, that person usually comes out firing "sex + violence", but in the end ban books, and country connections on the internet. If you give someone the right, they WILL abuse it. National security is the favourite excuse of all governments. Lincoln abused it, FDR abused it, Reagan abused it, Clinton abused it, Caesar abused it.

Speaking of erring on the side of caution.....shouldn't we be erring on the side of : "we're a rational people who can digest information without being harmed, capable of respecting others' sensitivities"?

[1Nivek1]

El Professor reminded me of a wonderful case in point of the anon.penet.fi server years ago. This is what happened:

penet.fi was one of the 1st, and very popular "anonymous" remailers (1993-1996).

1.
February 1995 at the behest of the Church of Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology). Claiming that a file had been stolen from one of the Church's internal computer servers and posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.religion.scientology) by a Penet user, representatives of the Church contacted Interpol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol), who in turn contacted the Finnish police, who issued a search warrant demanding that Julf (owner) hand over data on the users of the Penet remailer. Initially Julf was asked to turn over the identities of all users of his remailer (which numbered over 300,000 at the time), but he managed a compromise and revealed only the single user being sought by the Church of Scientology.

2.
In August 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996), a major British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) newspaper, The Observer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Observer), published an article describing the Penet remailer as a major hub of child pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography), quoting an United States FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) investigator named Toby Tyler as saying that Penet was responsible for between 75% and 90% of the child pornography being distributed on the Internet. Investigations by online journalist Declan McCullagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_McCullagh) demonstrated many errors and omissions in the Observer article. In an article penned by McCullagh, the alleged FBI investigator described himself as a sergeant in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California)'s San Bernardino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino%2C_California) sheriff's office who only consulted with the FBI from time to time, a relationship which the Observer article had in his opinion purposefully misrepresented as some kind of employment relationship. Tyler also claimed that the Observer purposely misquoted him, and he had actually said "that most child pornography posted to newsgroups does not go through remailers."
In addition, Julf claimed that he explained to the Observer the steps he took to prevent child pornography from being posted by forbidding posting to the alt.binaries newsgroups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroups) and limiting the size of messages to 16 kilobytes, too small to allow uuencoded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uuencode) binaries such as pictures to be posted. He also informed the Observer of an investigation already performed by the Finnish police (why was there even an investigation, it was impossible!?) which had found no evidence that child pornography was being remailed through Penet. Julf claims that all this information was ignored, stating that the Observer "wanted to make a story so they made things up." Despite voluminous reader mail pointing to the numerous errors in the news story, the Observer never issued a full retraction of its claims, only going so far as to clarify that Johan Helsingius had "consistently denied" the claims of child pornography distribution.

3.
In September 1996, an anonymous user posted the confidential writings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#Secret_levels_an d_writings) of the Church of Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology) through the Penet remailer. The Church once again demanded that Julf turn over the identity of one of its users, claiming that the poster had infringed the Church's copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_legal_system) on the confidential material. The Church was successful in finding the originating e-mail address of the posting before Penet remailed it, but it turned out to be another anonymous remailer: the alpha.c2.org nymserver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nym_server), a more advanced and more secure remailer which didn't keep a mapping of e-mail addresses that could be subpoenaed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena). Facing multiple criticism and attacks, and unable to guarantee the anonymity of Penet users, Julf shut down the remailer in September of 1996

------------------
I remember when this happened (many here may not be old enough,etc.). What's missing from the wikipedia article is that no one was mentioning the Church of Scientology....just the porn angle, over and over and over and over....until everyone thought it was true. I also remember knowing it couldn't be true cuz you couldn't post pictures through penet.fi, but that didn't stop the rumor mill at all (nor did the article post a retraction)

The reason, I'm sure, Julf shut it down and gave up was his reputation was so effectively smeared. God forbid someone be able to post text anonymously on the internet.

This wasn't porn! This wasn't national secrets! This was "stolen" files from a scientology server (turns out the guy was a defected Scientologist who was a computer tech). But what did the news say?! porn....porn....porn.