Re: Another Censorship . . . .

> Well, I agree obscenity exists in the sense that it is possible to be 
> deliberately obscene. But to me, the solution is not to remove or censor 
> whatever is considered obscene but to remove the reaction; that way we 
> all have greater freedom. Essentially, I am afraid that the label of 
> 'obscenity' is too easily used to censor political or other speech unjustly.

 That is quite true and unfortunate (note: I am generally very leery of
censorship, even while I acknowledge the existence of the obscene, for
this reason). I do support decency laws in public places, however -- I'm
glad that certain "establishments" that dot the highways aren't allowed
to show whatever they want on their signage.  I also think that it is
fair that public air waves are regulated since they are, obviously very
invasive even if it requires a special tool, such as a TV, to receive
those waves.

  On the other hand, I am very dubious of censoring anything less
invasive, such as the internet (except by parents on their home system
or libraries to keep offensive stuff, again, out of a public place),
printed materials, etc. 

> >My other point being obscenity is a nuanced issue as is racism. Some
> >parts of it can't be defined by an algorithm. "Saying 'I love the $XYZ
> >ethnic group'" might seem well enough, but could be racist given a
> >certain context.

> I find it hard to imagine a context in which it was not racist, except 
> in the case that you are talking about your physical/sexual attraction 
> to a person (and since we all naturally look for certain traits in a 
> partner I think this is the one case where this is hardly avoidable).

  Hmm... you have a point, although, the fact that I love to play the
"devil's advocate," what if while specifically saying the above about
$XYZ, I also held it true for all other groups as well? :-)

> (Perhaps that is racist too, but we have to consider that acceptable, 
> unless we are willing to condemn almost everyone. Given that Christians 

  Interesting point.

> have been known to condemn others on the basis of their sexual 
> preferences, perhaps you hold a conflicting view here).

  Without getting too deep, I'd note that what is generally held as the
correct theological view is that the preference isn't wrong, its what
you do with that preference. Homosexual activity being held to be as
sinful as premarital heterosexual activity.

  The unfortunate part is that the former gets more attention than the
latter from both groups inside and outside of the Christian Church and
thus it looks unfair. Many people (inside the church especially) forget
that there is no such thing, theologically, as "big sins." Sins are
sins.

> Perhaps what you were trying to say is that it is hard to draw a line 
> between acceptable racism and unacceptable racism. Some would consider 
> no racism acceptable; I am undecided but my current feeling is that this 
> is a little extreme. A fairly average view seems to be that racism is 
> acceptable until it harms others (i.e. is used to discrimate against 
> certain employees, or racist violence).

  Another very interesting point. Not exactly what I was saying, but
related. 

> I am not even convinced that racist hate speech is so unacceptable that 
> it ought to be censored. Although I condemn hate speech of all forms, my 
> feeling is that censorship is too potentially dangerous to be used for 
> any purpose, and I would prefer education as a better long term 
> solution. It seems to me that wide availability of information is more 
> conducive to the individual making a good choice on any issue than 
> 'unacceptable' information being restricted. Although it is possible 
> that a well prevented argument could sway me on this issue.

  I think overall, you are right. Pushing people "underground" by
censoring them only creates a resistance as well as increased interest
from those who might not have payed attention otherwise.

  I would, however, go back to my example of public censorship. Should
one be allowed to express racist/hateful/obscene things in public where
I have no choice about avoiding them (such as a billboard, perhaps on a
street or highway that I must use to get somewhere). The problem, is
where do you draw the line, since virtually anything will offend some
people... overall, up to this point, I think the line has been drawn
fairly responsibly on the average .

> >  As to overall generalizations, though, your set is rather reasonable,
> >even if I disagree with it concerning that it applies to Israel.
> >  
> >
> Well, I am glad that we are disagreeing on facts rather than definitions.

  Me too. :-)

  -Tim

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Butler       Universal Networks      www.uninet.info
==================== <[email protected]> ====================
| Christian Portal:      | Have you not learned great lessons |
|      www.faithtree.com | from those  who  braced themselves |
| GNU/Linux News:        | against  you   and   disputed  the |
|            www.ofb.biz | passage with you?   --Walt Whitman |


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.