what are some expert views on censorship?
544225
"well, I think [THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN DELETED BY YAHOO FOR CONTAINING UNHEALTHY INFORMATION. THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG] and that is my expert view on censorship.
404752
It really depends on what you mean by censored. There definitely has to be some oversight on what our kids are exposed to in school... in fact, I think at times there is too much oversight. But, to say that there should be no censorship or oversight I think would be a mistake. There are too many differing points of view on too many issues. Imagine the chaos that would be caused if the teaching environment was not controlled somehow.
131272
Maybe they should be restricted, but not banned.  Obscene language is part of reality, and if literature is a reflection of reality then it must include obscene language to be realistic and effective.  However, some language and subject matters are not appropriate for certain people and therefore should be restricted from that audience.
166298
no, A rating is a scale. Censoring is not alowing something
75496
It is never "OK" to censor anyone. You just need to be intelligent and educated enough to form an honest opinion, stick to it and never be afraid to change or challenge.
9944
Absolutely not. It's necessary to protect the right to free unbiased information. This applies for free speech as well. There's no such thing as the right to censor something to protect something else. About movies, they should come all in UNRATED version, with option to censor through the DVD player those parts children shouldn't see.\nSomething else: those who claim that the so-called "hate speech" should be banned don't really believe in free speech, or at least don't understand the concept.
179589
Censorship can not truelly be justified in any sense.  It is simply societies way of controlling what they do not agree with.
1022974
well they are a communist nation, and censorship is what communists do. impure communism is corrupt and the ruling group still feels it needs to crush dissent. if the chinese government allowed uncesored blogs and search engines, the people would organize and overthrow the communist regime. china is just trying to hold to to what will soon be an extinct form of government.
151628
I don't agree with censoring certain things.  Personally, I don't like rotten.com, so I don't go there.  It's not my thing, but I don't see any reason to take it away from people who enjoy it.  I supervise my child online, so she doesn't see things like this.  But, I do think that there should be some age verification in place for sites like this one.  Most of them rely too much on the honor system for my liking.  \n\nI don't mind adults having access to adult themes and abult subjects online, but I think that parents do need a little help with keeping kids away from it.  The majority of the responsibility falls on me, as a parent; but I'd like some safeguards from the company as well.
1096643
interesting, are they recruiting people or just stating things, or are they asking legit questions?\n\nfreedom of speech is kinda a right we've got, so they shouldn't be censored\n\nI'm neither one nor the other, but ignore it if they bother you\n\nIf it's so lame and obvious then it will only distract the stupid people from Answers and Questions\n\nno threat to us my friend
811365
Socrates was such an influential thinker.  With students as great as Plato, it was ridiculous to condemn a man who produced such a great outcome of philosophy.  I don't think Socrates is comparable to some of the true lunatics today.  I do not favor censorship, but if people outwardly try to harm others or cause others to become corrupt, of course they deserve retribution.  This would be instances such as the suice groups online that encourage others to kill themselves.
447963
What is their choice really?  Either they do what China tells them or they offer nothing to the people there.  There is no way for them to improve conditions for the people of China if the government blocks and removes them?  Better to sacrafice and be seen then not sacrafice and be eliminated.  \n\nPeople think there is censorship and a lack of privacy here; have no idea what freedoms they enjoy compared to the people of China.
30168
Should there be a watchdog on the web to filter out all the stuff that someone might want to be illegal?  Who gets to choose what that stuff is?\n\nYour definition of bad stuff is "cuss words and nuded people."  Mine might be racist words, or threats to individuals or groups.\n\nThere are filters for parents to use to stop this kind of information from reaching their children.  An one of any age can use them.  \n\nShould they be illegal - no.  We don't need more watchguards and big brother looking over everything we do.
490413
I've said here on more than one occasion people should learn to respect the rights of others to ask anything they want.\nIf they don't like the question they don't need to answer it, but why do they feel they have the right to ask for it to be banned? \nWho made them better people than us that they can judge what is and isn't OK to answer?\n\n\nI'll say it again if you people want censorship and all that is associated with it, have questions banned, if you want freedom of speech you have to take the rough with the smooth and accept that there are people with ideas that you won't like.\n\n\nTo answer the question: I think that given the same circumstances and an even chance there will be no difference in the intelligence of any race. We're all as stupid as each other.\nIf ethnic minorities get a level playing field is a completely different question.
601184
It has shades of Grey is my answer,nothing solid to protect it sadly. There is a difference in something being censored because of basic human dignity, and something being ruled inappropriate behavior for a human being. This freedom of everything has taken away my right not to view pornography,not to be subjected to profanity and violence. Not to have prayer in my school because it offends someone! When it was a right and part of my freedom and my kids. My being offended by gross sexual content on regular televison,billboards,...who cares. The right to protect my children from pedophiles (that has been argued as freedom too, and still to this day.) Whos freedoms am I hurting here?Should your neighbor be able to build his house so high yours was obstructed,your gardens died, what if and no small if,it was ruled it was his freedom of expression and need for a tower, would you not want some rules? Something,someone to help keep the peace of your space? Should he be able to have rock concerts every Friday on his yard?,that could very well cover some of the "freedoms", this kind of "freedom"would not be so nice. Nor the freedom to say terrible things about you or your family. Successful society has agreed on rules or we all best find an island, in short supply I might add.
300403
First, a review. The current restrictions on free speech fall into several categories.\n\nLaws can restrict people (actually, punish them after the fact) from exercising their rights to free speech if those rules pass strict scrutiny. This means that the law/rule must be designed to achieve a compelling govt interest, and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest/goal through the least restrictive means. \n\nFor example, the govt has a compelling interest in preventing civil violence. Therefore, people cannot incite unlawful action or express themselves in such a way that they would provoke others to attack them. This is the familiar "fighting words" exemption. Incitement is not protected speech.\n\nAnother non-protected category is where people make "true threats" of imminent unlawful harm. True threats are also not protected speech.\n\nAlso, people are not allowed to spread blatant lies about someone that hurts the target's reputation. Defamation (libel and slander) is not protected speech. Still, if the statements are about a public figure or matter of public concern, even false statements are allowed if the speaker does not know they are false. This is because the constitutional free speech protections are stronger than the absolute ban when it comes to public matters.\n\nFinally, in a different direction, people cannot reveal national security secrets, because of the potential harm. Since this is such an immediate and likely-resulting danger, the prohibition put in place BEFORE the speaker reveals the information, rather than punishing them afterwards.\n\n\nThese are the existing restrictions. Past US laws (see the Sedition Act) have tried to make it illegal to question or criticize the government. The purpose of this law was to support the US government, by preventing any criticism of it. Some would argue that national stability is more important than the right to complain or criticize. The argument was basically: If you don't like what the government is doing, then just vote differently next time. But criticism of elected officials just undermines the public sense of security.\n\nSimilar arguments could be made anytime an issue is politically or emotionally charged. If public calm and peaceful existence are considered compelling interests (which is not too much of a stretch for the imagination) then the government would be able to punish any speech that disrupts the public peace. This includes prohibiting any protest rallies, or other hot-button issues. As the argument goes, since public security is dependent upon calm and orderly conduct, any threat to that calm is a threat to security. Under this theory, the government has a compelling interest in making sure that only non-conflict-causing speech is expressed.\n\nTo be clear: I don't agree with the above arguments. I think people should be allowed to say anything they want, provided they accept the consequences for their speech. For example, if someone spreads lies about a person, that's defamation (libel and slander) and they have to pay for the damage they cause. Just like a tresspasser would have to pay for any damage they cause to property. But that's not a reason to prevent people walking around.
306706
This is a real hot potato - your right to free speech is crucial\nBut there is also a responsibility to ensure others aren't offended and minors aren't corrupted\n\nSo maybe the answer is to have a safe area and an open area - in the open area anything goes but access is restricted to over 16's and people who are easily offended won't look there either??