Comments on: Christians unite against Bill

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:38:50 +0000

‘Everything else’ – I feel you are using the sledgehammer rather than the fine paintbrush. Surely ‘everything else’ is too sweeping, unless you have first carefully considered all the possible scenarii. What about a carefully graded sliding scale?

Do you really think that life is divided into two *unconnected* compartments labelled public and private? Such that one’s behaviour in each of the two can be schizophrenically different to one’s behaviour in the other? How would one defend such a belief?

By: Shaun Hollingworth

Shaun Hollingworth — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:29:14 +0000

Shell – The ONLY routine censorship I agree with is that of child porn. This is because the evidence of harm to those involved in its making is overwhelming.

Everything else, provided that secular harm isn’t imposed on the participants, is fine by me.

As a freeborn (?) adult I should be able to look at whatever I wish. I should be punished for things I do to others, which are harmful or upsetting, not for pictures I might look at in my own home or other essentially private places.

By: sconzey

sconzey — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:20:45 +0000

Yes, what strange bedfellows we make in the pursuit of our beliefs…

And I’m not just talking about Christians.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:17 +0000

Re: the driving licence example: Not all adults are, or should be, allowed to drive. The key category is not ‘adult’ but ‘possessor of driving licence’.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:26:56 +0000

Reluctant though I am to disagree with a Tingey (as my grandmother was one), surely you cannot possibly hold that position.

For example, you would agree with censorship of footage of distasteful illegal acts.
Even if you didnt agree with that, you would agree with censorship of their broadcasting on a mass screen in Hyde Park.
Everyone agrees with some censorship. Therefore everyone takes the same position: some things should be censored, others not. The only difference lies in where we each draw the line.

In addition, the point about ‘adult’ not equalling ‘mature’ needs to be addressed.

By: G. Tingey

G. Tingey — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:49:07 +0000

Shell said…
“The only two positions are to favour censorship of everything and censorship of nothing?
I would have thought that those were 2 extreme positions held, in practice, by practically nobody”
Erm for adults, that is a perfectly reasonable position.

For minors, it is different.
Children should be protected or forbidden to do things until they are ready to handle them – like you cannot get a driving licence until a certain age.

But for censorship – either you do not trust people, and behave like the catholic church or the Kremlin and censor everything, or you leave it alnone.
You can always NOT buy it, or turn the switch to OFF, after all.

Stop trolling Mr. Shell!

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:06:48 +0000

Hi Shaun-
The only two positions are to favour censorship of everything and censorship of nothing?
I would have thought that those were 2 extreme positions held, in practice, by practically nobody.

By: Colin Meade

Colin Meade — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:05:41 +0000

Won’t catch MAB and MCB opposing blasphemy laws.

By: Andy A

Andy A — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:59:08 +0000

It can be a bit discomfiting being in agreement with someone when on related issues one is diametrically opposed to them. I was in Carmarthen (West Wales) once, a couple or three years ago, and had just signed a petition in the street against GM crops. As I chatted to this affable chappie our beliefs came out, and, after I’d given my atheist creds, he informed me that he was a bloody creationist. To my credit (I think; correct me if I’m wrong), I remained polite and bade him cheerio after we’d ended our conversation. I’ve often wondered if I ought to have ended the conversation by telling him that his creationist beliefs were a load of tosh. It’s a bit like that with this religious-hatred stuff. Joel Whatsisname and I might get on like a house on fire talking about this particular brand of censorship …

By: Shaun Hollingworth

Shaun Hollingworth — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:12:23 +0000

At least they are against SOME censorship then ?

Now why don’t they look at this issue, and realise what an EVIL thing censorship is, and oppose ALL of it ? Except perhaps the special case of child abuse imagery.

It is most irritating when such people say they don’t believe in censorship, and only want to apply that philopsophy to the censorship AFFECTING THEM….

If they want their freedom of expression, they simply have to tolerate people being allowed to express themselves in ways THEY don’t like.