• 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?

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Banning it simultaneously draws more attention and curiosity to it and drives it underground where it becomes far more dangerous. Keeping the population ignorant also makes them easier targets, since they don't know what they're getting into, and makes them less likely to report it when seeing it, because they don't know what to look for.
Banning religious texts don't work, especially not in the Information Age.
Exactly.

It's very counterintuitive how it works. A lot of people believe banning somehow solves the problem when in reality it exaggerates it. It's the reversed psychology thing working on the human psyche. We've seen this during prohibition, the current drug war, banning books over history, and many other examples. It tends to get worse the more attention you put to it. America has one of the largest criminal laws in the world (California alone has more law than most countries in the world), and we also have one of the most equipped police force as well, but still, we're also in the top of the highest crime rates in the world, and highest population of inmates. The basic truth here is that it's not as easy people like it to be. Don't like it--just ban it--mentality is the quick-fix solution. What has to happen is rather to go to the root or core of the problems and solve it there. Social programs. Education. Informercials. And so on. Retrain the mind through healthy "propaganda".
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Exactly.

It's very counterintuitive how it works. A lot of people believe banning somehow solves the problem when in reality it exaggerates it. It's the reversed psychology thing working on the human psyche. We've seen this during prohibition, the current drug war, banning books over history, and many other examples. It tends to get worse the more attention you put to it. America has one of the largest criminal laws in the world (California alone has more law than most countries in the world), and we also have one of the most equipped police force as well, but still, we're also in the top of the highest crime rates in the world, and highest population of inmates. The basic truth here is that it's not as easy people like it to be. Don't like it--just ban it--mentality is the quick-fix solution. What has to happen is rather to go to the root or core of the problems and solve it there. Social programs. Education. Informercials. And so on. Retrain the mind through healthy "propaganda".

You almost had me until you called it "propaganda." That word has only negative connotations to culture at large, so it shouldn't be used.

However, I do agree that it's the culture that needs to be targeted. And this needs to happen from within, such as from activist groups, not from governments or megacorps. I don't trust the latter two to be anything other than lazy when they don't get the instant results they want.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
You almost had me until you called it "propaganda." That word has only negative connotations to culture at large, so it shouldn't be used.
I know. That's why I put it in quotes. :D

Essentially, it's kind'a what it is. It's educating the "stupid" (in quotes) the masses what's right and wrong, only for the purpose of controlling society as a whole. Banning doesn't work. However, education, informing, and guiding, and essentially steering the values, cultural mindset, and opinions, towards the better and away from the bad.

However, I do agree that it's the culture that needs to be targeted. And this needs to happen from within, such as from activist groups, not from governments or megacorps. I don't trust the latter two to be anything other than lazy when they don't get the instant results they want.
Sure.

And, in history, those activist groups have been the religious ones. Today, the activist groups mostly tweet and post on facebook. :)
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I know. That's why I put it in quotes. :D

Essentially, it's kind'a what it is. It's educating the "stupid" (in quotes) the masses what's right and wrong, only for the purpose of controlling society as a whole. Banning doesn't work. However, education, informing, and guiding, and essentially steering the values, cultural mindset, and opinions, towards the better and away from the bad.

Basically, the trick is to make future generations want these changes.

Sure.

And, in history, those activist groups have been the religious ones. Today, the activist groups mostly tweet and post on facebook. :)

Those aren't the activists I'm talking about. I'm talking about the activists who do that, and actual stuff in the real world. I.e., the modern equivalents to those activists who got same-sex marriage legalized, civil rights in place, and women able to vote. ;)
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Basically, the trick is to make future generations want these changes.
Yup. That's right.

Those aren't the activists I'm talking about. I'm talking about the activists who do that, and actual stuff in the real world. I.e., the modern equivalents to those activists who got same-sex marriage legalized, civil rights in place, and women able to vote. ;)
Ah. Right.

I was thinking of the other side activists, the ones restricting stuff. Or banning stuff they don't like.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Yup. That's right.

Ah. Right.

I was thinking of the other side activists, the ones restricting stuff. Or banning stuff they don't like.

Understandable. The Straw Man has worked such great magic (as I like to put it) in those circles that it's easy to mistake one for the other, even within the same movements. I can think of a few activists (won't drop names because I don't want to derail this thread) who are frequently accused of wanting things "banned" because they "cause people to do Bad Things", when they've said no such thing, and indeed have said the exact opposite.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The people in power, professionals involved in the judicial system, local community groups who can petition their MPs/Councillors, community leaders from both religious and non-religious backgrounds. As is the case with most things really.
Did you notice that none of those you mentioned actually study physical or mental health?
We know for a fact that some movies have led to copy cat killings or violence, we know for a fact that pornography corrupts human social and psychological well being and so on and so forth.
Violent people are violent. All studies have shown is people in lab will engage in petty forms of aggression, but these have not translation to real world aggressiveness and violence. How many have went out car jacking and shooting hookers after playing Grand Theft Auto? Here are some lyrics from the Slipknot song, Disasterpieces:
I want to slit your throat and **** the wound

I want to push my face in and feel the swoon
I want to dig inside, find a little bit of me
'Cause the line gets crossed when you don't come clean
But yet none of that is going on. 'Tis nothing more than an outlet for those who are angry and frustrated with society and people. Or, there these Mudvayne lyrics, from their some Dig:
Let me help you tie the rope around your neck,
Let me help to talk you the wrong way off the ledge,
Let me help you hold the glock against your head,
Let me help to chain the weights onto your legs
Get on the plank ****

But despite the violent lyrics, metalheads are known for being peaceful, being well adjusted, open minded, and emotionally stable. When compared to fans of other genres, more loyal and more dedicated to their loved ones.

According to some, Marilyn Manson is a terrible influence, but all he's doing is holding a mirror up to society, and he even ridicules our ways of liking to solve issues with violence.
Banning it simultaneously draws more attention and curiosity to it and drives it underground where it becomes far more dangerous. Keeping the population ignorant also makes them easier targets, since they don't know what they're getting into, and makes them less likely to report it when seeing it, because they don't know what to look for.
Exactly. All putting parental advisory stickers on records did was make it much more likely the record would sell. Controversy pretty embued Black Sabbath/Ozzy Osbourne, Alice Cooper, Marilyn Manson, and Eminem with the ability to sell tons of records, and it made them all common household names.
 

McBell

Unbound
The people in power, professionals involved in the judicial system, local community groups who can petition their MPs/Councillors, community leaders from both religious and non-religious backgrounds. As is the case with most things really.

For example, if there is a book preaching a cult which leads to mass suicide, we don't need any of this freedom of speech bs, which doesn't exist anyway, we need the book to be banned and the writer to be locked up. Or assessed on a psychological basis.
Ah, so when the powers t be decide that the Koran is immoral and should be banned, you won't have any problems with that, right?
 

Tomorrows_Child

Active Member
Ah, so when the powers t be decide that the Koran is immoral and should be banned, you won't have any problems with that, right?

But it has to be based on fact. If the Quran preached indiscriminate killing, genocide, suicidal cults and so on, then yes, I would agree with it being banned. But it doesn't so the hypothetical question becomes redundant.
 

McBell

Unbound
But it has to be based on fact. If the Quran preached indiscriminate killing, genocide, suicidal cults and so on, then yes, I would agree with it being banned. But it doesn't so the hypothetical question becomes redundant.
Yet that is merely your opinion on the Koran.
There are many whose opinion is the exact opposite of yours.
So whose opinion trumps when it comes to banning books?
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
We know for a fact that some movies have led to copy cat killings or violence

Those so called "copy cat killers" would have killed people anyway. They exist regardless of their "inspirations."
Movies don't create killers, they just make them more creative. And you can say that about literally anything. There are probably killers inspired by goddamned Shakespeare or even Leonardo Da Vinci!
Not exactly tangible proof that these have a detrimental impact on society.
But certainly proof that mental illness needs to be addressed far more efficiently.

we know for a fact that pornography corrupts human social and psychological well being

Umm no we don't. Unless you count the fraudulent works of "Dr" Judith Reisman, who has a hard on for taking down Kinsey, by any means necessary. She's not a scientist and her "studies" are riddled with bias. Got any scientific sources to back up the claim? Because I can't find any.
The worst you can say about porn is that it might give unrealistic expectations for sex. But that's not a reason to ban it, just a reason to take it's depictions with a grain of salt and more sex ed for young people.

I could quote decades of evidence but I'd rather you look it up yourself. Of course, this is not to say an action movie for example, say Die Hard, would automatically lead violence in people but it would certainly cause bigger problems in those who have mental health issues or depression.

First of all, we don't ban anything just because some mentally imbalanced person will react negatively to it. You'd effectively have to ban literally every piece of art work in the world. Which is not a good thing. Ever read 1984 or Brave New World?
That was the turning point of humanity being effectively destroyed and rebuilt as nothing more than robots.

The most correlation you could point towards (of the studies that do point out a positive, rather than the numerous studies that claim the opposite is observed) is that it correlates to aggression in youth. But even then, that's in the context of video games and often in a competitive environment to begin with. You'd have to ban every sport in existence if that was a legitimate concern, though.

Also there has been a decrease in violent crime committed by the youth, coinciding with the rise of the popularity of violent video games. Just saying.

Of course, the whole "effects violent media has on ourselves and kids" studies are actually a purely American phenomenon. (We very occasionally see one or two in the news but not nearly as many as America seems to have.)
In the rest of the Developed world, in particular Europe and Australia, these studies are not taken very seriously in an academic framework. This is because these other nations recognize that culture specifically is vital in understanding the complex social interactions and how exposure to violent media is then filtered through those interactions. The "moral panic" American studies are often considered too simplistic because they fail to take into account complex societal influences, culture, political climates, how mental illness is treated (socially, academically and medically, which America doesn't have the best reputation for, no offense) and various other variables.

What it does do to everyone however, is desensitise all of us to real violence.

Does it have a desensitizing affect on us? Yes. But so what? You think this is new?
The ancient world (just in general) public executions viewed as entertainment, wars, accepted corporal punishment etc in previous generations have had a desensitizing affect on the youth to some degree. We have been desensitized for a long time, actually. This doesn't go away if you ban media, merely makes us more curious to consume said media and that itself can be far more detrimental. Because we no longer have the context of "this is just fiction." By banning it, you've created a new context. "This is dangerous rebellious fare that our overlords have forbidden." Who knows how that would change the interpretation and reaction people have to said media.
Even saying that, people who watch "torture porn" would be absolutely disgusted when faced with real world violence. Because when watching "violent media" they are doing so in the knowledge that what they are viewing is completely staged. Conversely when faced with actual real life depictions of violence, they would react negatively. Because the safety of fiction is gone.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
We know for a fact that some movies have led to copy cat killings or violence, we know for a fact that pornography corrupts human social and psychological well being and so on and so forth.
Nope.
Of course, this is not to say an action movie for example, say Die Hard, would automatically lead violence in people but it would certainly cause bigger problems in those who have mental health issues or depression.
Die Hard makes depression worse? :D
What it does do to everyone however, is desensitise all of us to real violence.
You've never seen real images of death, murder, suicide, torture, executions, etc. have you? If so, you would know that there's a huge difference between fiction and the real thing. I've been viewing pictures and watching videos of the real thing for over a decade now and it still bothers me at times. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Not so much.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Here's some research on porn:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of-smut/
Contrary to what many people believe, recent research shows that moderate pornography consumption does not make users more aggressive, promote sexism or harm relationships. If anything, some researchers suggest, exposure to pornography might make some people less likely to commit sexual crimes.
http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s
So in the last two decades, we have conducted a vast experiment on the social consequences of such material. If the supporters of censorship were right, we should be seeing an unparalleled epidemic of sexual assault. But all the evidence indicates they were wrong. As raunch has waxed, rape has waned.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/study-finds-online-porn-reduce-incidence-rape-article-1.390028
Could online porn be responsible for a decrease in rape cases?
A Clemson University study suggests it might.
Todd Kendall, an economics professor at Clemson University, published a study that found "the arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape incidence."
He notes that "association" is not causality, but he does point out that "it is notable that growth in internet usage had no apparent effect on other crimes."
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn--Good-for-us-/
No correlation has been found between exposure to porn and negative attitudes towards women.
And I found this about violent movies:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html
The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that's because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit.
 

Tomorrows_Child

Active Member
Here's some research on porn:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of-smut/
Contrary to what many people believe, recent research shows that moderate pornography consumption does not make users more aggressive, promote sexism or harm relationships. If anything, some researchers suggest, exposure to pornography might make some people less likely to commit sexual crimes.
http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s
So in the last two decades, we have conducted a vast experiment on the social consequences of such material. If the supporters of censorship were right, we should be seeing an unparalleled epidemic of sexual assault. But all the evidence indicates they were wrong. As raunch has waxed, rape has waned.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/study-finds-online-porn-reduce-incidence-rape-article-1.390028
Could online porn be responsible for a decrease in rape cases?
A Clemson University study suggests it might.
Todd Kendall, an economics professor at Clemson University, published a study that found "the arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape incidence."
He notes that "association" is not causality, but he does point out that "it is notable that growth in internet usage had no apparent effect on other crimes."
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn--Good-for-us-/
No correlation has been found between exposure to porn and negative attitudes towards women.
And I found this about violent movies:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html
The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that's because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit.

For every paper or website you quote, I could quote 10 saying the opposite, especially with my involvement in the scientific field. But anyone can go on pubmed and have a look for themselves. Now, I'm not saying violent or sexual media automatically leads to violent or sexual crime but it can often act as a trigger.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
For every paper or website you quote, I could quote 10 saying the opposite, especially with my involvement in the scientific field. But anyone can go on pubmed and have a look for themselves. Now, I'm not saying violent or sexual media automatically leads to violent or sexual crime but it can often act as a trigger.
It just isn't happening. It's a trend in multiple countries studied that having more access to porn does not lead to higher rates of sexual crime, but rather lower rates. There are no spikes in violent crime whenever a new violent video game or movie is released. Metalheads, who are regularly exposed to very violent lyrics, are, overall, a rather peaceful group. Even with Creationism and evolution, both sides are citing their papers, but we have math as the unbiased and disinterested mediator to let us know which group is correct. In this case, the math supports the hypothesis that violent media does not turn people violent, as the hypothesis that it does is only being seen in a lab setting and only with petty and trivial forms of aggression that are worlds apart from actually punching, fighting, raping, stabbing, and shooting.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
For every paper or website you quote, I could quote 10 saying the opposite, especially with my involvement in the scientific field. But anyone can go on pubmed and have a look for themselves. Now, I'm not saying violent or sexual media automatically leads to violent or sexual crime but it can often act as a trigger.

A trigger is largely insignificant next to all the stuff that led up to it. It's merely the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Thus making it seem as though he should be arguing for the ban of all triggers.....

A dear friend of mine is anxiety-triggered by depictions of vomit, and of babies crying.

Therefore, if we were to "ban all triggers", both of these would have to be banned, too. And I can tell you this: my friend would NEVER want that. So I certainly hope that's not what's being argued.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
By the way, I wish to reiterate: there is a difference between being "offended" and being "triggered."

There are things that offend me but don't trigger anything. And I get triggered by some things that don't offend me at all.
 
Top