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