Anonymous #1 4w

Really? What publically consumed content should be censored? “Well obviously we should protect children from accessing sexually explicit material,” you say. That’s very smart, I agree. So what counts as sexually explicit material? Actual sex, of course. That’s where nuance opens up. A medical textbook explaining the menstrual cycle? Drag history? A picture book with a genderqueer character?

47

Anonymous #1 4w

The fact is, *you* don’t get to interpret the nuance of laws once they’re in the lawmaking sphere. Those lawmakers and judges now get to interpret what of those topics are obscene and what aren’t, instead of the much more “free” option of censoring nothing and allowing individual parents to be responsible for what their child can access. Obviously there will be some accidents, but the moment you let lawmakers choose where the line is drawn, they’re going to draw it over on *your* sand.

47

Anonymous #2 4w

I fear that that is entirely the point of a law and the idea of a constitutional country, the ability to look at laws and understand the nuance to them and appeal your case. There are very few laws that don’t have asterisks and amendments and clauses attached to them precisely because people have looked and them analyzed them and experienced them in different ways. Seeking a generalized and unregulated “free” option, I feel is inherently uncaring.

11

Anonymous #2 4w

We should not seek to undermine the opinions of the minority simply because it benefits the majority. Those few accidents are ultimately apart of someone’s life. And shouldn’t be brushed aside so easily. The world will be better black and white and is ever changing and so too should our laws

0

Anonymous #1 4w

My bad I meant that the world will forever not be. Typo 😞

1

Anonymous #1 4w

I’m much more willing to accept that some individual families will make mistakes than a government we all have to live under. That’s not sweeping it under the rug, that’s utilitarianism. It’s okay if you disagree with that, but that’s my view. As for “appealing your case” against censorship laws, that’s all well and good until you’re an author trying to raise enough money to sue the state who took your book off the shelves. Or PBS Kids and NPR accepting major funding cuts with a bowed head.

32

Anonymous #1 4w

Or a library being prosecuted for hosting drag storybook hour, or being threatened with major fines for displaying “sexually explicit material” too close to the entrance. Or a liberal arts college student whose program just got federal funding slashed because the curriculum is part of the woke mind virus. I could go on. Censorship is a battle that must be “appealed” by every single person it affects, which is a lot of spread-out losses for every win

29

Anonymous #1 4w

I don’t seek a generalized opinion lightly. I think that your argument boils down to a level of trust in the government that I simply do not have. Either you’re a bit naïve, or you’re willing to accept that media you like will be buried because it will protect you from media you don’t

18

Anonymous #2 4w

I agree that my opinions do presume that the government is inherently better than it is, but my purpose wasn’t to argue what should be done but to shift away from this end all be all attitude. It is worth the time to think of what an idealized approach to censorship would be because that is what we strive for. One law doesn’t fix a broken system and if the system is ever to be fixed we must must take a closer look at such principles and generalizations

1

Anonymous #1 4w

What does an idealized approach to censorship look like to you?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

The us or them perspective is gratifying and empowering but is also not sustainable in a diverse society

-1

Anonymous #2 4w

An unbiased and interpretative version of it. A direct channel of communication between the parties in question, where ramifications are justified and considerate rather than as swift and unfeeling as you used in your examples. Ultimately it would be an approach in which intention and effect is the primary consideration

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Because if you and I can see that there’s a difference between drag story book hour and a wish of harm on to another group or individual then an idealized approach to censorship would too

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Okay, good point. All you’d need to do is to find a way to arbitrate subjective moral quandaries with an objective, unbiased standard. I’ll happily support you as soon as you develop that. From the crowd as you’re awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

lol, yes thank you for understanding. I look forward to seeing you in the crowd as I lord over everyone with my moral superiority

4

Anonymous #2 4w

are either of you pre-law or law students by chance? bc this is how i imagine pre-laws/law students would argue

4

Anonymous #3 4w

Haha I’m an architecture major but good to know I missed my calling

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m in majoring in funeral service but law was a contender, so thanks lol

1