Quote:
Originally Posted by thebes
I would argue that if speech is regulated which is not directly related to the articulable harm of another, then that constitutes censorship. CP is illegal and immoral because it is an artifact of chi ld sexual abuse... Plotting a terror activity should be regulated because the intent and end is to cause harm to innocent bystanders... Piracy can be morally regulated because it harms the intellectual property interests of the legitimate owner.
The problem with regulating "extreme things that the majority of the world agree is illegal" is the changing and arbitrary definition of what is "extreme", 40 years ago anal porn was extreme, should that have been regulated? What if the majority of the world doesn't want me to develop jesusiscuming.com or whatever because it is "extreme"? May I then be censored?
|
Isn't that the point though, the majority of the world is not christian so the majority would not class jesusiscuming as extreme. Nearly all countries class terrorism as extreme, cp as extreme, beastiality as extreme, but there is not that many other things that could be classed by the majority as extreme.
If the majority of the world decided that jesusiscoming is extreme then yes it should be regulated, because the decision is not just based on one country or another it would be based on a majority of the worlds countries deciding its wrong.
The problem with censorship as it is at the moment, is one country can decide something is illegal just because it wants to and it then has the right to stop and monitor traffic because its illegal in that country. Take China for example it stopped a large amount of internet traffic not so long ago.