My rant on censorship

[DB Roy]

"No. Does a manual on how to manufacture IEDs or details on decapitation techniques have to be on the bestseller list in order to defeat them? Military experts need to know the former, but I don't see any benefit to the general public for either."

You would if the general public were the victims of them. And you just admitted that the military needs to know since they are the victims of them.

"So you can't conceive of any book that should be banned? How about a book that details the floor plan of your house showing where to cut phone connections, how to jam your wifi, schedules of your wife and kids, and so on?"

Straw man argument. No one is going to publish such a book. It's not going to be a hot seller. Moreover, that is information ANYONE can gather just by watching your house. No different than no one needs to publish a book full of stolen credit card numbers, the people who steal identities already know exactly where to go to get those.

"Or a secret/encrypted book on exactly how to cyber-steal from your bank?"

As soon as such a book hits the shelves, the info in it is already obsolete and the public can't read it anyway since it is encrypted (????). Maybe I misunderstood your point?

"We have previously run lengthy lists of information that is not covered by free speech such as contractually restricted trade secrets, legal restrictions on settlements, classified info, shouting fire in a theater, etc. I agree the 1st amendment is the most important one in the Bill of Rights, but just can't accept there are absolutely zero limits to what can be published."

If there are laws against the publishing certain information, then the banning point is moot. I never said anybody should be able to publish anything they want with no fear of being arrested for it. If it's against the law to publish it and you publish it, well, good luck to you. I'm talking about perfectly legal books that contain information that people will often blame for somebody's behavior. Reading "American Psycho" isn't going to make you into a serial killer. The guy who reads it and then duplicates Bateman's behavior is responsible for his behavior not the book and not Brett Easton Ellis.

So the question is, should an author have the right to get a book like "American Psycho" published? I say yes. Should it be banned if someone reads it and duplicates the behavior? I say no.

That is entirely separate from should someone publish a book that contains information that is illegal to publish. Banning doesn't apply because the material wasn't allowed to be published in the first place.

[DB Roy]

I have searched for a better example of how banning would be acceptable. There was a book put out some years ago on teaching young people the art of hunting. Most of the book seemed to be legitimate hunting techniques. But one chapter was problematic. It was about "sound shooting." According to the author, a hunter should keep his ears open and if he hears something coming through the brush, take aim, get a good bead on the sound and then fire.

This chapter was removed by the publisher after the book hit the shelves. Hunters who reviewed the book said that there is no such thing as "sound shooting" and that it is an irresponsible thing to teach to young hunters. No one should shoot at anything without knowing what it is. But usually, it takes a tragedy to force publishers to act and such was the case here.

The hunters' reviews occurred only after two incidents proved the efficacy of sound shooting--you'll kill what you're shooting at alright. In one case, a boy took his dog out into the woods to hunt small game. At one point, the kid hears something coming through the brush. Remembering what he read about sound shooting, he took careful aim and fired. He killed it alright--his beloved dog.

In another case, a 14 yo kid was behind his house which bordered on some woods practicing with his rifle. He hears something coming through the tall brush and decides to test out his sound shooting skills. He took aim and fired then ran over to see what he bagged--his older brother who was coming back there to see what he was doing, a brother he loved and idolized. Good, clean shot right between the eyes.

So the hunters condemned the book and the publishers removed the offending chapter. Was this a form of banning? Well, you could make a case for it, I suppose. Should the author or the book be held to blame for these tragedies? In this case, I say yes. Why? This book was supposed to be teaching young hunters how to hunt effectively. They assumed the info presented to be tried and tested. They assumed these were techniques that all good hunters use. They trusted the author who was supposed to be an experienced hunter. They trusted that the publisher would never have allowed a book on the shelves with insanely dangerous hunting techniques to be sold to kids incapable of judging the soundness of such techniques.

Now if the book contained a sound shooting chapter headed by a warning as: WARNING! THE FOLLOWING TECHNIQUE IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE AND SHOULD NEVER BE TESTED BY ANYONE NOT WISHING TO BRING GREAT TRAGEDY, LIFELONG REMORSE, GUILT AND SADNESS ON HIMSELF. Then, I suppose, it would absolve the author and publisher except, of course, such a chapter has no business being in such a book which means that, warning or no, this chapter did not belong in the book and should never have been allowed in.

[LanDroid]

Here's an interesting twist on censorship.

Employers can control your vocabulary. Governor Rick Scott’s administration has reportedly prohibited some state employees from using the terms “global warming” and “climate change.”

Florida—a state often typecast as a land of oddities and outlandish narratives—spawned its latest believe-it-or-not story on Sunday when the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting published a report that employees at the state Department of Environmental Protection had been told to not use the terms “climate change,” “global warming,” and “sustainability.”

http://fortune.com/2015/03/09/florida-f ... te-change/

[youkrst]

Here's an interesting twist on censorship.

wow, just wow, how sad, what a miserable and pathetic level we have sunk to, soon the only way will be up.

when the "Department of Environmental Protection" cannot use the word "sustainability" then Orwell has been proven to be non-fiction.

[President Camacho]

This is borderline criminal at this point in the game.

[ant]

Which one would you keep, if given the choice to salvage one and why?

1) global warming

2) climate change


Has the planet ever warmed then cooled or is this current warming trend not going to reverse itself as it has in the past?

Is the climate changing? Yes. Has it before? Yes.
Will it again??

I would pick "climate change" so as not to play the alarmist game and just in case it changes again.

[DB Roy]

I pick global warming.

[youkrst]

i'm going with "the bird that craps in it's own nest"

or possibly "the matricide of gaia"

[President Camacho]

Why not caution on the safe side$ Why not$ I'm hereby replacing the ? with $ in all my posts. It fits, I think. Doesn't it$

[youkrst]

YE$

$ looks like a serpent on a staff