Changes

:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guarenteed by the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

There are many, many things that the world would be better off if they could be banned. Islam, for a start, and all other religions that damn people to hell (like Christianity). Liberal propaganda. Texts defending the right to sodomy or trying to normalise it. Attacks on the family. Anti-christian materials. Pornography. Occultism. Darwinism, and other pseudosciences that destroy God. I would be happy to see all of those banned. However, there is no earthly authority that I would trust to write or to enforce the list of banned materials - there is too much potential for corruption, and without such an authority there is no option but to allow everything. This is why the first ammendment exists - of course the founders knew there were many things that should be banned, but they also realised that government cannot be trusted to do this. Better to just put up with this cultural pollution and to fight it where possible than to risk creating a position with the power to ban the bible and hoping it's only ever occupied by good people. All we can do as Christians is fight to silence and surpress unholy speech and those who continue to make it on a case-by-case basis, to keep it as quiet as possible. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

There are many, many things that the world would be better off if they could be banned. Islam, for a start, and all other religions that damn people to hell (like Christianity). Liberal propaganda. Texts defending the right to sodomy or trying to normalise it. Attacks on the family. Anti-Christian materials. Pornography. Occultism. Darwinism, and other pseudosciences that destroy God. I would be happy to see all of those banned. However, there is no earthly authority that I would trust to write or to enforce the list of banned materials - there is too much potential for corruption, and without such an authority there is no option but to allow everything. This is why the first amendment exists - of course the founders knew there were many things that should be banned, but they also realised that government cannot be trusted to do this. Better to just put up with this cultural pollution and to fight it where possible than to risk creating a position with the power to ban the bible and hoping it's only ever occupied by good people. All we can do as Christians is fight to silence and suppress unholy speech and those who continue to make it on a case-by-case basis, to keep it as quiet as possible. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

         You really come off as a fascist, ya know.

         You really come off as a fascist, ya know.

==Yes==

==Yes==

I agree that certain books should be banned.  Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries.  You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care.  Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam  

I agree that certain books should be banned.  Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries.  You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progressive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self-censorship is the answer for those who still care.  Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam  

:But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

::Crime has steadily fallen in the UK for a couple of decades, it is linked more to prosperity rather than reading material [[User:MrVipond]]

::Crime has steadily fallen in the UK for a couple of decades, it is linked more to prosperity rather than reading material [[User:MrVipond]]

:::I must confess I am in conflict with my church's position on this one.  I think censorship should be applied similar to the way we apply hatespeech.  A book shouldnt be censored for merely mentioning or describing immoral or ungodly things.  Rather it should be banned for inciting people to do such things.  Thus Harry Potter shouldn't be banned but a book on "how to cast spells" should be.[[user:DamianJohn]]

:::I must confess I am in conflict with my church's position on this one.  I think censorship should be applied similar to the way we apply hatespeech.  A book shouldnt be censored for merely mentioning or describing immoral or ungodly things.  Rather it should be banned for inciting people to do such things.  Thus Harry Potter shouldn't be banned but a book on "how to cast spells" should be.[[user:DamianJohn]]

You could argue that since the bible says "do not bear false witness" (paraphrased somewhat) that ANY FICTION is contrary to Gods will and therefore should be untouched by any true Christian. Following this reasoning though a library could contain ANY book, and a moral person would simply leave it unread, or stop reading as soon as its nature was determined. Parents should supervise their children though, so Sex manuals in a library would not bother me , since my children would not have access to them . [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

You could argue that since the bible says "do not bear false witness" (paraphrased somewhat) that ANY FICTION is contrary to Gods will and therefore should be untouched by any true Christian. Following this reasoning though a library could contain ANY book, and a moral person would simply leave it unread, or stop reading as soon as its nature was determined. Parents should supervise their children though, so Sex manuals in a library would not bother me, since my children would not have access to them . [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Libraries have and already do censor books becuase there have been many times where i went to local library and i was unable to find what i was looking for becuase it was to conserative.

Libraries have and already do censor books because there have been many times where i went to local library and i was unable to find what i was looking for because it was to conserative.

:Markr, that argument is quite flimsy because it is not bearing false witness if it is clear that fiction books are false, and if the author makes it clear that what has been written is false. Also, fiction includes anything that is false, including Jesus' parables. He did not tell a story about something that had happened, but a story about something that hadn't happened. But in the telling, it is clear that the parable is not literally true, but an analogy, fiction. And I don't think you'll find anyone who would believe that by telling parables, Jesus was bearing false witness. - JamesCA, August 12 2011

:Markr, that argument is quite flimsy because it is not bearing false witness if it is clear that fiction books are false, and if the author makes it clear that what has been written is false. Also, fiction includes anything that is false, including Jesus' parables. He did not tell a story about something that had happened, but a story about something that hadn't happened. But in the telling, it is clear that the parable is not literally true, but an analogy, fiction. And I don't think you'll find anyone who would believe that by telling parables, Jesus was bearing false witness. - JamesCA, August 12 2011