All censorship is bad. I'd challenge anyone to argue with that point, but since I probalby won't revisit this page, there's really no reason.
Well, you may not be coming back, but other people will read this. I suppose if your mind is made up and you're not interested in peoples' responses, "there's really no reason" for you to come back...
Anyway, I'll take up your challenge with a simple example, and a little extrapolation. A few years ago I was living in San Francisco. Shortly before I left, I began to be quite offended by how much sexually suggestive material was appearing on billboards, advertisements at bus stops, etc. This wasn't stuff that you had to go looking for on some web site--it was right out there in public where those who didn't want to see it couldn't get away from it except by staying holed up at home or moving out of the city. Now, you may disagree with me and think that sexually suggestive advertising like that should be allowed, but would you go so far as to say that businesses should be allowed to go beyond that and post sexually explicit advertisements in public? I'll make a counter-challenge to anyone to defend the right to do that--let's see if we can find a slash-dotter who will to stick up for the greedy capitalists preying on our sex drives!
Hardly worth a response, but I will anyway: there's a big difference between protecting (hopefully while teaching), and manipulating through ignorance.
What's the harm in actually teaching our children what's bad, and what they probably should stay away from, instead of trying to put a clamshell over them and hope that nothing ever gets through?
Of course we should teach them, but why not use a little of both approaches? You don't teach a child to watch for cars by tossing them into a busy street to show how much it hurts--nor by standing back and letting them run out into traffic--you stop them--you restrict their motion--and you teach them why you did it. And you stop them again next time, even though you've already given them a fair shake at learning without experiencing. It's foolish to think that you can teach the harms of pornography so well that the lesson will be fully learned before they take a peek, and then another, get addicted, and learn the hard way. I would never suggest sheltering anyone from truth--teach them the truth, and protect them from harm while they're learning.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you may not be coming back, but other people will read this. I suppose if your mind is made up and you're not interested in peoples' responses, "there's really no reason" for you to come back...
Anyway, I'll take up your challenge with a simple example, and a little extrapolation. A few years ago I was living in San Francisco. Shortly before I left, I began to be quite offended by how much sexually suggestive material was appearing on billboards, advertisements at bus stops, etc. This wasn't stuff that you had to go looking for on some web site--it was right out there in public where those who didn't want to see it couldn't get away from it except by staying holed up at home or moving out of the city. Now, you may disagree with me and think that sexually suggestive advertising like that should be allowed, but would you go so far as to say that businesses should be allowed to go beyond that and post sexually explicit advertisements in public? I'll make a counter-challenge to anyone to defend the right to do that--let's see if we can find a slash-dotter who will to stick up for the greedy capitalists preying on our sex drives!
we-have-to-protect-our-children-from-naked-people- big-brother-will-take-care-of-us lamers
Hardly worth a response, but I will anyway: there's a big difference between protecting (hopefully while teaching), and manipulating through ignorance.
What's the harm in actually teaching our children what's bad, and what they probably should stay away from, instead of trying to put a clamshell over them and hope that nothing ever gets through?
Of course we should teach them, but why not use a little of both approaches? You don't teach a child to watch for cars by tossing them into a busy street to show how much it hurts--nor by standing back and letting them run out into traffic--you stop them--you restrict their motion--and you teach them why you did it. And you stop them again next time, even though you've already given them a fair shake at learning without experiencing. It's foolish to think that you can teach the harms of pornography so well that the lesson will be fully learned before they take a peek, and then another, get addicted, and learn the hard way. I would never suggest sheltering anyone from truth--teach them the truth, and protect them from harm while they're learning.