Censorship.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
indra said:
I respectfully disagree. It's not the knowledge that's the problem, it's the putting that knowledge into action that would be offensive (and I'm not that bothered by your second example anyway).

Im not personally bothered by the second example either. Where I work is burgled for ingredients and tools for making hard drugs. The burgalry causes massive inconvenience to researchers, technicians, cops, etc.

And yes you can get it on the internet but not everyone is adept at finding it.

I agree with the remark that its not the machines its the people but I would still prefer to limit the amount of people who know how to make a nuclear device/biological weapon. The weapons inspectors have visited my workplace but I still dont feel comfy with this. Maybe we need more inspectors? I dont really know the answer. Thinking out loud, I guess.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
Still, along this line of thinking, if you punished all those who created child pornography, would it be okay to publish the pictures taken or is this censorship?

The harm caused to the child doesn't end after the act or photos are taken. You are publishing photos of harmful and unconsentual acts, this doesn't fall in the realm of free speech.
 
nbcrusader said:
Still, along this line of thinking, if you punished all those who created child pornography, would it be okay to publish the pictures taken or is this censorship?

I think the idea behind banning child pornography is that by doing so, you're discouraging the practice of making it. If you can't sell it, you can't make money from it, thus removing the incentive for making it in the first place. So the reasoning doesn't lie so much in punishing past acts but rather in preventing future acts.
 
Back
Top Bottom