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

Originally Posted by benzss

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, yeah, obviously without the existence of the video there would be no issue; so it would be great if we could stop these videos from being made in the first place. We really can't, though. As for dissemination, they are usually posted to jihadist websites, and sent to news organizations. The news reports on them from there, so they have their intended effect regardless of how extensively the videos themselves are disseminated.

Originally Posted by benzss

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

I don't get it

Originally Posted by benzss

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.

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.

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.