But...there is a saying I try to include in my decisions, and I mean try and not always successful.
It's "Choose your Battles" Can't win em all...
And it's marvelous to me to see scn get their asses kicked here,
In a democracy or where you have lawsuits and things, society sort of censors that stuff. It's not all that effective though and lots of people get gyped anyway.
So IDK. But if the big guns can get censored by a government once in a while, that's kind of cool in a way because nobody else has done it successfully in recent times.
This thread has resulted in a conversation with a friend of mine who believes there are some things which should be censored. We agreed that child pornography is illegal in that there is a consent issue so banning that material, in our considered opinion, doesn't constitute censorship. But, what about, say, a recipe for meth? She says that such a recipe should be censored because the damage done to freedom of speech is mitigated by the prevention of harm the manufacture of meth would cause. Its a "lesser of two evils" stance. My position is that such a recipe can be found by those seeking it regardless of whether or not it is censored and, in fact, just because it is censored, may well act as an incentive for the rebellious to seek it out when they might not otherwise. A futility plus censorship = cachet stance, I guess.
In my heart of hearts, I remain undecided, and can see both sides with equal clarity. Bottom line - I dunno; but my gut instinct says censorhip may be a short term solution but is unsustainable over the long term.
"A person will never be free from Scientology if they use Scientology to explain Scientology - they will always be left with huge unexplained gaps that can never be answered because the answers Scientology gives are inadequate and false." - Alanzo
There is a whole side to this which seems to have been missed.
When $cn started to try and break into the soviet bloc it used translators to convert the texts into cryllic .
However,during this process one of the translators became disaffected with the cult and registered the copyright to each book to himself. As a result the cult could not legally publish books (or import translated copies) without the permission of the copyright holder.
I learned this some years ago from a close friend who had been involved in the "inde" movement in Russia.
I do not know if the cult came to an agreement with the copyright holder or not, but it may just be that the cult have been blocked from trying to violate the copyright.
Anyway, it is an interesting thought.
The trouble with banning "something" is that the something becomes irresistable to certain types of people.
The people who feel they are brighter than the rest of humanity, better able to handle stuff other people can't, people who delight in knowing something others don't. Those who get a thrill doing something mildly dangerous in their vanilla life.
Banning is proof of it's edginess and danger - suddenly it becomes waaaaaay more important than it is. Then there is the prestige of reading the unreadable, the ego boost to say not only did you read it- but you really understood it and know why the government banned it!
I would love it all gone, but the internet age will never allow it. Better to ignore it into insignificance.
A human statue made of living stone / A paradox etched in human bone / If you could see behind his thin disguise /There`s a hidden glint of madness in his eyes. / Many men are fooled by his smile / His superficial grace his charm his style / Sardonicus is everybody`s friend /Sardonicus keeps smiling to the end.