How far should censorship go?

Question

I heard a radio discussion programme this week about censorship in the media. One persons view was that all images of child abuse, rape, acts of violence, etc., should be censored in all formats, including graphic novels(drawings). Another person was defending artists who include such imagery as long as it relates to the story.

So how far should things go? Is a ban on such imagery a ban on using your imagingation. Do violent video games prompt others to do the same and imitate what they see. Surely reading a well written book could provoke such imagery within someones mind. Is that not more damaging?

Answer 1

I've looked at the censorship question several times. Despite how logical you try to be - you just can't stop quality or 'taste' if you like, and intent having quite a bearing.

If a piece of art or media photography perfectly a conveyed the senselessness of war through grahic horror images- I would applaud it. If similar graphic horror images appeared in the press, or piece of art, and the apparent intention was to sell newspapers then I would probably be there calling for censorship.

Answer 2

Anything that is proven, beyond doubt, to be harmful should be censored. Nothing more. Go beyond that, and you're simply censoring on grounds of taste.

There are also degrees of censorship. A lot of recent debate about pornography has been about banning possession, not just publication. There's a big difference between preventing the distribution of such material and tossing someone into jail just for having a look.

You need to be wary of definitions too, because a lot of people who want to increase censorship have a tendency towards sensationalising things. Thus a harmless picture of a 17 year old girl with her b***s out becomes "a disgusting image of child abuse", etc.

Answer 3

When you read a book you may imagine it different to what another person does.

I do think that the things you have mentioned should never be allowed and should be censored