Can censorship ever be morally justified, or is it inherently a violation of freedom
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
In an era marked by rapid technological advancement, widespread access to information, and increasing global unrest, the role of censorship has become a matter of urgent and complex debate. This discussion seeks to examine whether censorship, when employed by governing bodies or institutions, is a justified measure for ensuring societal stability, national security, and public well-being. The proposition maintains that censorship, far from being a temporary or situational tool, may serve as a necessary and enduring mechanism for guiding public discourse, limiting harm, and fostering a more cohesive and harmonious society. The opposition, however, contends that censorship fundamentally undermines individual liberties, suppresses dissent, and sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian control.
Forfeiture
"A married couple with a nude profile picture for example (yes, this happened)."
Lol
To be fair, images and videos arent exactly protected by free speech, not even in USA. Free speech usually protects words and text. Now if censorship includes censoring more than just words and text, such as images, then I guess in that case, censorship can be justified.
Fair point. It reminds me of common definitions of what rights should be (effectively limited just by when their abuse infringes upon others).
Aside from bots, there are other things that require intervention. A married couple with a nude profile picture for example (yes, this happened).
Spam bots are different, I guess. If someone posts 1000 comments in 5 minutes in one place, he is effectively censoring everyone else by making the site impossible to use. Its kinda like when in conversation, person shouts and doesnt let anyone else talk.
As a moderator, I find it is often needed (just consider the spam bots) even if it would be better if people were better and thus did not need to be censored.
Agreed with Moozer, you should probably update the title/resolution to make it clear exactly what position you are supporting.
It cant ever be justified, because a condition for censorship to be justified is a constant debate about topic which it wants censored, making it impossible to censor a topic as it must debate it to justify itself, thus cannot censor it and be justified in doing that, at it negates the debate, and with it, a condition it needs to justify itself.
Sounds interesting, I might accept. The description would benefit from some definitions though, specifically what you mean by "justified". Also, it's a little unclear which side you are on.