I'd rather quick and easily understood ratings systems continue to grow so people can make informed decisions about what media to consume.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Banning media which contain immoral/terrify/voilent/sexual element?
- Thread starter Pudding
- Start date
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
It's usually a sign of an emerging totalitarian government where free speech is halted, freedom of expression is suppressed, and innovation, creativity, science, and many other areas ultimately falls behind.
It's essentially the door to hell.
If we should ban any media that contains violence, then we have to ban 50% of the news. Half of the stories are about people getting killed or hurt.
It's not a question of banning these things but make them less available for younger people. They're not ready yet to separate fact from fiction or make proper moral decisions.
Yes. If we ban one book for these reasons, then the holy books should be banned equally.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yup.Actually, we should ban any media that suggests banning other media. If someone suggests banning something in public, he/she should be automatically banned.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
We're as rational as we can be as human beings.
If we would ban things because we say that the majority can't make a rational decision, then we have to put the decision into a few people at the top of the government who we should assume can make those rational decisions for us. Now, if they're human, like the rest of us, they will be equally dumb or smart as anyone else, which means a few idiots will decide that all other idiots in the world are to stupid to do their own decisions, so these few idiots think they're the smart ones. Nothing really has changed, except that even regular information and news would be limited to the discretion of these few idiots, and the rest of us idiots will be stupefied even more and prove them right.
In the end, yes, humanity is a crappy species, but if we can't learn, as a whole, to do the right things on an individual level without supervision, then we're doomed regardless. Putting the decisions in the hands of the few doesn't solve it. It only makes it worse.
--edit:
or to put it simply, to take away the ability to choose is to take away the ability to learn.
Forget the moral and ethical implications. Banning things just because they make some people uncomfortable, or even because they might trigger anxiety, panic attacks, depressive episodes in other people (which, by the way, are WAY more serious that simple "discomfort"), is lazy. It demonstrates a lack of actual care and empathy for other peoples' values, voices, and culture, and thus unfit for any kind of governmental office.
However, we also shouldn't ban criticism of that media. (There are folks on the internet these days that seem to have equated "criticism" with "banning"). That includes calls by critics for certain media elements to "knock it off." That's not banning, that's criticism.
Furthermore, individual organizations, within the US at least, are totally free to implement their own restrictions on media within their confines. Parents are free to restrict what their children can watch, companies are free to restrict what their workers can watch on company-owned equipment, schools are free to restrict what books are available at their libraries, etc.
However, we also shouldn't ban criticism of that media. (There are folks on the internet these days that seem to have equated "criticism" with "banning"). That includes calls by critics for certain media elements to "knock it off." That's not banning, that's criticism.
Furthermore, individual organizations, within the US at least, are totally free to implement their own restrictions on media within their confines. Parents are free to restrict what their children can watch, companies are free to restrict what their workers can watch on company-owned equipment, schools are free to restrict what books are available at their libraries, etc.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, I think anything that contains any material which could trigger someone should be banned. Trigger warnings aren't enough! I've stopped reading, watching, and listening to everything altogether, since I could be triggered by anything at any moment, without any warning. I just don't understand how so much violence and filth could be allowed to be seen and heard when there are so many people out there who are psychologically traumatized. Where's the compassion for all of us delicate, traumatized flowers???
Clearly even me using the word "trigger" has "triggered" a bit of a frustrated sarcastic rant from you.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Clearly even me using the word "trigger" has "triggered" a bit of a frustrated sarcastic rant from you.
Actually, I didn't even read your post.
Touche.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
My problem isn't with what is or isn't getting banned, but who is doing the banning.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Yes, I do mean that. Ban actions not thoughts. Banning a book is no different than banning a thought.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Good point. It seems like some people mistakenly compare critique with banning. I have that experience from being a moderator in the past on another forum. Some people, when they were told that their opinion wasn't agreed on, without removing or banning the person, they exclaimed things like "why are you censoring me?" or such. Disagreeing on a point in public, and letting the other person's views be visible, isn't the same as censoring or banning.
Yeah, I've seen that attitude all over the internet. It's INCREDIBLY frustrating, since it fully demonstrates that those who do so aren't interested in actual honest discussion, but in "winning".
First Baseman
Retired athlete
I support banning banning itself. Let's make it the last thing we actually ban.
But that's banning.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Hence, I worded it the way I did.But that's banning.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
You're jumping on the ban-wagon as well.I support banning banning itself. Let's make it the last thing we actually ban.
We should go as far as even banning the word "ban" as well. It will be replaced with *beep*, so banks will be called *beep*ks, and bandana will be *bleep*dana, etc. In Germany, they will drive on the auto-beep. And for breakfast, I had a beep-ana.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
That made me chuckle, but it would likely be going a bit too far.You're jumping on the ban-wagon as well.
We should go as far as even banning the word "ban" as well. It will be replaced with *beep*, so banks will be called *beep*ks, and bandana will be *bleep*dana, etc. In Germany, they will drive on the auto-beep. And for breakfast, I had a beep-ana.