Is censorship based on our facts and morals or on other people's morals?
148108
Well, that can be a tricky question. Most censorship and obscenity regulation is set based on what the majority of people find offensive. Sometimes it is not even the material to be censored that is offensive, but studies showing that it leads to something offensive, a study linking obscenity to mistreatment of women as an example. \n\nOfficials either elected or appointed by, elected officials set these guidelines. Who elects these people? The majority of voters elect them. \n\nSo, we have people electing officials and those officials either directly setting censorship guidelines, or appointing other people to set those guidelines. \n\nSo while censorship is set directly be a small number of people, the majority sets those people in place. It's like censorship via proxy. So it is based both on our values and those of others. Democracy is about compromise, keeping things neither to liberal or too conservative.\n\nAs for whether or not censorship is based on your morals, you would have to ask yourself on each issue, are you in the majority, or the minority?
254312
Sure, it could be argued that censoring it lends it an appearance of legitimacy, but I think any risks of people taking it more seriously because it is recognized and censored do not outweigh the necessity of taking into account the pain and offense that some people might feel at the prospect of these ideas.  Holocaust denial, for example, is a spit in the face - to put it mildly - to millions of Jews and other peoples who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.  Denying them the right to their history is unfair, and only expounds a problem that has already been exacerbated.\n\nNazism, on the other hand, is arguably a valid concern.  Though I doubt facism would ever rise to the same level it peaked at in the thirties and forties, it is still a legitimate political ideology, and it goes by many names, one of which is Nazism or Neo-Nazism.  To allow people to run rampant with such ideas is another affront at the history of atrocities committed in the name of such facism, and ought to be prevented.\n\nThe issue of freedom of expression - which does not exist in Germany to the extent that it does here in the US - should not be misused so as to condone such behaviours and ideas.  I think the US is even too lax in this department, allowing such groups as the KKK to voice their sentiments.  There is a limit to where freedom of expression impedes upon another person's ability to experience civil freedom, and that's unallowable.  This could shoot off into a related debate, concerning where to draw the line and why, but point being, I do think it ought to be censored.  Ideas such as these should not be condoned by "civilized" humanity.
337512
its just plain 'ol censorship\nnothing you can do about it
900108
Yeeehah for the American way! It's only free speech if they say it is. OK? Other than that, you must be content with the illusion of free speech and make sure they don't realise who you are through your ISP. Have you ever watched Spooks?
811365
Socrates was such an influential thinker.  With students as great as Plato, it was ridiculous to condemn a man who produced such a great outcome of philosophy.  I don't think Socrates is comparable to some of the true lunatics today.  I do not favor censorship, but if people outwardly try to harm others or cause others to become corrupt, of course they deserve retribution.  This would be instances such as the suice groups online that encourage others to kill themselves.
901078
Government censorship is a constitutional violation. The protections in the constitution only apply to govt (not private) action.\n\nIf you're talking about Yahoo, that's a private forum. And private forums are subject to whatever internal rules and policies they choose to adopt. Yahoo has guidelines that you argee to follow as a condition of using this private service.\n\nI agree with your core concept -- people need to stop being so irrationally sensitive, and allow broad discussions. I don't agree with personal attacks, because they are largely pointless, but rarely is a general comment actually going to be a personal attack.\n\nThat being said, again this is a private forum, with established rules.
506341
All cultures have their own morals. If most of the Indonesians agree to ban kissing in public places, let them have it. However, I think the punishment is too strict.\nThat’s also ok if they ban porn in public places (for example, putting playboy int he shop window), but it’s very stupid to ban the sale itself. Banning the whole stuff is rude restriction of human rights.\nBesides, why is there porn? Because people want it. If they didn’t want porn, they wouldn’t buy any, so the ban would be very hypocrite as well. Int he U. S. A. banning alcohol created huuuge crime. Now what do you expect if SEX is restricted?!
567655
If it's a political ad it would not support any morals...might contain lies about being moral.
215290
Governments do it all the time but I think it's immoral.\n\nIn some cases it might be justifiable for works that are just plain obscene or promote violence, works that accomplish nothing except make the world a worse place - turn people to criminals, or something that makes you worse off from reading it and has no beneficial value to anyone.
334664
I think if our plan is to "educate" them, we might consider that we have been in a state of near continuous war for centuries. How is imposing our values ethical or moral really valid.\nI also wonder how truly free we are. We do have freedom of thought, we just don't have the freedom to vocalize it. Maybe on paper. Maybe we are free relative to being in bondage, but by its pure definition are we really free?
404752
It really depends on what you mean by censored. There definitely has to be some oversight on what our kids are exposed to in school... in fact, I think at times there is too much oversight. But, to say that there should be no censorship or oversight I think would be a mistake. There are too many differing points of view on too many issues. Imagine the chaos that would be caused if the teaching environment was not controlled somehow.
280315
i am a pro... freedom of expression that offends others can be done but behind closed doors... the government is restricting certain expressions as there are possiblities that it may offend others around the world and this may have serious consequenses...
865308
If the book is deliberatley written to degrade any one person or group of persons it should be censored. That is both morally and socially wrong and should never be done. I have been a victim of literature degradation and no one should have to go through that.
64387
Freedom of Speech is not an absolute.  The Supreme Court along time ago decided obcenity is not protected speech.\n\nNow censorship is something that only the government can do.  Take the theaters that refused to carry that Brokeback Mountain.  That was a freemarkedt decision, where it would have affected the profits of the theater owners if he had run the film.  His property, his decision.  Now if the government stepped in then it should be banned that's censorship\n\nLike I said free speech isn't an absolute, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or anything that would put someone at risk.
373011
Having the right to speak your mind should not mean that you escape the consequences of speaking your mind.  It's a double-edged sword.  For instance, you can say what you like about someone, but if you say something untrue about someone else, that person can sue you -- that's their right.  Being able to lie about someone without fear of consequences would be a bad thing.\n\nAlso, you can say what you want, but you have no right to expect someone to support what you say if they don't agree with it.  For instance, if you write an article for a magazine slamming a politician, and the owner of the magazine doesn't agree with it, he doesn't have to let you print that article using his money and his resources.  he may *choose* to allow you to do that, but he's under no obligation to -- the owner of the magazine has a right to freedom of speech, too, and your right to say what you want should not infringe on his right to use his property (the magazine) as he sees fit.\n\nAs a side note, this is not censorship.  Private citizens have the freedom to decide how their resources and property is used; only the government can be accused of censorship.\n\nSo I'd say that freedom of speech should be unrestricted, up to the point that it infringes on another person's rights (and you have no right to not be offended, so so-called 'hate speech', a chillingly Orwellian concept, does not apply).
94706
We have freedom of speech. We can say what we think but we also understand that others also have that right. If we reacted with violence every time we were offended, society would turn to chaos. With freedom comes the responsibility of respecting other peoples freedom.
218222
Yes.  That's freedom of speech.  You know, like a bunch of scumballs standing around screaming "Death to America?"  You may not like what people say or publish, but they have the right to do it.  You have the right to ignore it if you wish.  So, if something someone says or publishes offends you, don't watch or read it.  It's so simple, isn't it?  After all, it's not as if they are putting a gun to your head (or threatening to kidnap and behead you) is it?\n\nNo, I would not have published the cartoons, because I do respect others' religious views.  Also, because the peace loving, respectful Muslims of this world choose to commit violence and murder over a silly cartoon.  Ask them how they feel about Jews sometime to get their views of what respect for another's religion is really all about.  It's THEIR religion that all of this respect is limited to.  If they had their way, all Jews would be killed.  In the West, we call this hypocrisy.  In their world, I guess it's called respect.