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

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.

Originally Posted by Syme

I'm okay with rating films/games as being inappropriate for people below a certain age; what I'm arguing against here is outright prohibition, not age restrictions. As for censoring polarizing figures, or refusing them entry to a country, I think it's generally inexcusable. Whenever I hear about that sort of thing being, it just makes me shake my head at the low regard so many people (usually Europeans) seem to have for freedom of speech.

Couldn't agree more. It's a cause of much frustration for me.

Before a beheading video could be banned on the grounds that it might encourage others to commit similar crimes, I'd want to see hard evidence supporting the realism of such a concern. Suggesting that something might inspire criminal acts seems to be a pretty good (and popular) way to attack free speech, so such suggestions need to be treated with a lot of initial skepticism and examined very carefully before being acted on. For every person making such claims because they have good reason to believe that the material in question might actually inspire more crime and are genuinely concerned about the possibility, there are probably ten people who are just trying to get something they don't like banned and know that playing on fears of copycat crime is a good way to do it.

This seems like a reasonable way to look at censorship, but any kind of censorship where the viewer is apparently being protecting grates against my concepts of free opinion and speech etc. It's a similar argument to that of gun control advocates, who assume that because one bad apple will be influenced badly that nobody should enjoy the right of ownership to a gun. I mean, removing guns, or offending videos/games/beheadings, from society by force of law might initially have the desired effect, but for me that isn't really the point or a positive thing in the long term.

Censorship where the protection of the victim is paramount, like child pornography, is another matter. This is the instance where owning material which contains an illegal act should be illegal in itself. But yes, as you say, the link ought to be pretty clear.

Hm, there, we seem to have debated to a conclusion I'm happy with anyway, heh.