Many like to censor content that is not intended for them, just a few like that contents aimed at them is censored, and none, that I know, wants to be censored in front of the rest. It is clear that the issue has a significant degree of subjectivity. But should censorship be a universal principle, managed and directed without arbitrary discretion?
I do not want to get deeper into this, because then we start with moral digressions, which are worth more to a book than to a post. I will only say that it seems necessary to some extent a degree of censorship on information they receive, for example, children: it is more practical to get a child not touching the bleach at all, than ensuring that he understands the chemical properties of liquid and the harm they could cause if swallowed. It happens that on entering that crack, we step into a world of cases and exceptions of the type: “this category of people is not ready for this kind of information.”
Should a company allow the free flow of information that threatens its stability? I do not only refer to Chinese preventing Google crumbling remains of its Communist foundations, but also books or pamphlets with doctrines that promote controversial issues such as racism, holy war, mass murder or cannibalism. The question does not seem so clear, right? The simple answer is: yes, those issues "I" consider objectionable should be censored. It happens that the "I" are normally "others."
Personally, I do not like "others" decide what I can get to know or not. But, of course, "I" as an individual I have more discretion before I join the "we" of the social mass that I belong to. Then I become a little silly, a little less tolerant, and slightly more susceptible to propaganda. Perhaps what's best to "me" is not what is best for "us." Or for "you", when separately taken. Is it?
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment