Thread: "We can ban books!"... Hope and Change (TM), coming your way!

It's pretty much a culture by culture thing.

Look, I realize all this stuff is completely relative and subjective, and that i'm arguing against some libertarians. The point I'm making is that there are certain acts that are universally distasteful, generally because their creation requires the abuse of another group, whether it's women, kids and/or any other human being.

Are you telling me the video of the decapitation of a hostage in Afghanistan shouldn't be censored? That the video of the brutal hammer murders in eastern Europe aren't beyond 'reasonable distaste'? That child pornography shouldn't be censored or stamped out and snuff videos are ok to distribute, but illegal to make?

Ok, enough of the hyperbole. Like I've already stated, by 'reasonable distaste' I mean material whose creation requires the abuse of another entity, whether or not said entity is there willingly.

Originally Posted by Syme

I'd agree that it's reasonable to ban child pornography. Why should videos of people be killed be banned, though?

What is the difference between censoring child pornography and censoring videos of beheadings? Both are non-consensual for the victim and both are crimes in our countries.

On first glance there seems to be a big gulf between the two, but looking deeper I can't see much difference. Would the beheading of a child be censored? What about videos of adult rape?





[disclaimer: I'm in no way advocating any of the above]

Child pornography is an industry; people make child porn specifically for the purpose of providing it to people who want to see child porn. They make money off it. Banning the possession or distribution of that kind of material is part of fighting the industry that creates it, and therefore is part of preventing the kids from being abused in the first place. Videos of killings generally don't fit the same model. Al-Qaeda's beheading videos certainly don't, nor do those hammer-murder videos.

IF someone was videotaping murders for the purpose of selling the video to people who want to see it, then I'd be okay with banning that, because banning that sort of video would make it less likely that it'd be produced at all. But snuff videos of that kind are really an urban legend.

Originally Posted by Syme

Child pornography is an industry; people make child porn specifically for the purpose of providing it to people who want to see child porn. They make money off it. Banning the possession or distribution of that kind of material is part of fighting the industry that creates it, and therefore is part of preventing the kids from being abused in the first place. Videos of killings generally don't fit the same model. Al-Qaeda's beheading videos certainly don't, nor do those hammer-murder videos.

IF someone was videotaping murders for the purpose of selling the video to people who want to see it, then I'd be okay with banning that, because banning that sort of video would make it less likely that it'd be produced at all. But snuff videos of that kind are really an urban legend.

That seems kind of arbitrary. Simple illegality isn't enough for censorship, but if the material is produced on a large enough scale then it qualifies. Of course, money isn't the only object. Al Qaeda and others were probably counting on their video getting publicity for without it their killing of one or two hostages would be rendered useless; similarly, if producers of child pornography have no audience, it is also rendered useless as an industry.

Is there a distinction to be made between protecting the victims, or potential victims, portrayed in such material, and protecting the viewers? That seems to me to be a more realistic distinction, but then it comes back to the problem of who exactly decides what needs to be censored.

That said, I don't really have an answer myself right now.

Originally Posted by Syme

I would argue that even if al-Qaeda's videos aren't seen by many people, they have their intended effect. After all, most people probably don't learn of these videos by watching the actual videos; they learn about by reading in the newspaper, or seeing on a news program, that al-Qaeda has produced another beheading video. The percentage of people who actually track down and watch the videos after learning about their existence is probably fairly small.

Granted, but without the existence and dissemination of the video the beheading and the various explanations would not be known. I see your point though. Inevitably people would get hold of the video, and it would hardly be illegal to report it.

I mean, can you seriously argue that it ought to be illegal to possess video footage that simply shows an illegal act occurring?

No, I can't, but apparently in some cases you can.

EDIT: Yes, I would say that the fundamental question to be asked when considering censorship of videos depicting criminal acts is whether the censorship will protect the victims. If banning the creation/possession/distribution of such videos makes it less likely that the criminal acts depicted in the videos will occur at all (as is certainly the case with child pornography), then the ban is justified. If not, then the ban isn't justified; it's just pointless moralizing. "Protecting the viewers" doesn't seem like it should matter; I'm not even sure that it makes sense. Protecting them from what, seeing something gross?

Heh, from seeing something gross perhaps, but also in other areas. Like certification of films (12, 15, 18 etc) and games out of fear they might influence people's behaviour, or the censorship of polarising figures... such as the BBC's voice ban on Gerry Adams in the 80s and 90s, or even Britain refusing entry to Geert Wilders and Canada refusing George Galloway. Censoring a beheading could be rationalised by arguing that such an extreme act might galvanise and radicalise certain people either way to imitate or commit other crimes.