Turn on thread page Beta

Does Censorship inadvertly promote that which it is out to censor? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hope this is the right place ... I will put my arguments in later as I am in a hurry and also very forgetful (hence wanted to post quickly)


    The question is meant in terms of controversial,fundamentialist,di scrimantory views. Would it not be better to combat them with reasoned and constructive confrontational debate rather than censoring their publication as it may invoke a ' why are they hiding this from us, are they hiding the truth because they have no defence for they're own argument' type of reaction.
    Offline

    2
    Well i suppose it rather depends on the thing being censored... f.ex. there are no real arguments for child pornography, and anyone who thinks there are would not be taken seriously in a "reasoned" debate. However, on such issues as censorship in China, a reasoned debate could probably be held.

    But even this would open up a can of worms... who would decide what was morally completely unacceptable and what could be put to debate? Plus i think democratic nations do not censor anything but the most horrific things, and undemocratic nations would not allow debate... rather like communism, yours is an excellent idea in theory but one impossible to put into general practice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that in the case of profanity, censorship has just prolonged those words status' as profane. If we were to allow those words in our everyday life they would cease to be shocking.

    That and I believe words society deems to be 'profane' are just symbolic of heightened emotion and that censoring this is, in general, a no-no.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I mean more focused on the decisions of an individual i.e fundamentalists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you take the British governments decision to bar the Dutch politician and documentary maker, Geert Wilders, from entering the country, you have a classic example of censorship backfiring. Had he been allowed into the country for a showing of his documentary, only a handful of people would have been aware of his presence.

    The decision to bend-over backwards in response to the demands of some Muslims and to ban him meant that Geert Wilders was front-page news. Another example of the incompetence of our politicians.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It can do - especially these days.

    If you don't want something publicised, the last thing you do is to tell people you will censor it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But would you be more likely to turn to an ideology if it was censored rather than if u were offered an alternative viewpoint?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Question: Would it not be better to combat them with reasoned and constructive confrontational debate?

    Answer: Yes

    Question: Are all people able to reason and participate in constructive and confrontational debate?

    Answer: No

    And hence the problem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Question: Would it not be better to combat them with reasoned and constructive confrontational debate?

    Answer: Yes

    Question: Are all people able to reason and participate in constructive and confrontational debate?

    Answer: No

    And hence the problem.
    But with these situation the party that should be able to form the reasoned and constructive debate should be our government who should be able to reason even if they cannot confront those they are opposing directly. If they can't construct a basic argument then why aree they in power?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Censorship and banning in general serve as a quick fix for paranoid politicians who just want problems to go away long enough for their administration not to have to deal with it. To use a medical metaphor, it is essentially treating a symptom rather than the underlying cause. I've always been in favour of greater investment (of time and attention as well as money in this case) in education, equipping the general public to handle issues rather than ban them altogether and hope they never find out.

    And to specify my answer in terms of banning individuals (Geert Wilders was the example given), the action is hypocritical and counterproductive in a so-called free society. The fact that the government banned him (whilst in the same breath allowing entry to an equally racist radical Muslim cleric enter the country) aid the former's cause. In committing to that action the government certainly went a way to validate Wilders' argument in the eyes of those who were on the fence. That and the more troubling precedent it sets to be able to ban in the name of convenience.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I might be biased but as a Jew I feel criminal charges for Holocaust Denial is effectiver in deterring that anti-semitic behaviour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camden Town)
    If you take the British governments decision to bar the Dutch politician and documentary maker, Geert Wilders, from entering the country, you have a classic example of censorship backfiring. Had he been allowed into the country for a showing of his documentary, only a handful of people would have been aware of his presence.

    The decision to bend-over backwards in response to the demands of some Muslims and to ban him meant that Geert Wilders was front-page news. Another example of the incompetence of our politicians.
    This is a good example.

    However, let's consider a more relevant example. Russia are in the act of changing their history books - changing evidence that Stalin committed atrocities, and hiding from the Russian population the truth of the Gulags. Combine this with an Internet proxy and it makes it very difficult for the Russian Layman to find objective information regarding Russias history. This sort of 1984-esque censorship is the type that will not create more exposure.

    In response to OP's suggestion: it really depends on the type of censorship. As Camden Town suggested with his example, small censorships in a largely democratic state will only lead to it backfiring, however a huge act of censorship in a censored state will not.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 8, 2009
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.