In loco parentis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While the pupils are here, we're the parents. [sort of.]
Makes me something of a hypocrite considering the schools filtering policies, but personally I think perants implecity, by sending the kid to school, charge us with withholding the pupils freedoms while educate them (if that makes sense).
Last edited by tmcd35; 23rd October 2013 at 03:19 PM. Reason: when useing long words - make sure you know how to smell them ;)
tmcd35 (23rd October 2013)
Example: I invite you to my house (a private abode) and ask if you'd like leave a message using my fridge magnets. If you write something I find offensive, I'll remove it. Does that amount to me infringing on your right to free speech?
The role of the government is to create and enforce laws according to the 'joint morals' of the nation.
The majority of people believe that some censorship is necessary. For example, to protect the mental health of children (eg. footage of extreme violence can and will damage a child's mental well-being.)
Videos of this sort should be stopped through law for people who are not of legal age, not through the whims of individual organisations based on whoever shouts the most (eg. Daily Mail). Law means consistency.
If a site can't ensure the age of the user then it should not allow such footage to be shown. Much like pornography in this country.
The idea that government censorship is inherently a bad thing is just as idealistic as saying its completely a good thing. It has its place.
As you say, it's my liberal idealology, and as I said above - I aquiesce to societies greater wisdom.The idea that government censorship is inherently a bad thing is just as idealistic as saying its completely a good thing. It has its place.
EDIT: Aquiesce - I like that word, seems apt. Sometimes I wonder if we aquiesce too much power to the state because it's easier than taking personal responsibility?
Last edited by tmcd35; 23rd October 2013 at 03:18 PM.
@Disease You are entitled to your opinion, im entitled to mine.
Do you think its ok for anyone, without logging into you tube can see the following?
*****Dont click if easily offended*******
NOT FOR SCHOOL IMO
Graphic content warning: Baboon eating gazelle alive - YouTube
At least FB you have to register.
"While we are on the subject, having seen people killed for real whilst in the Army, why on earth would anyone think looking or want to look at another human being having their head cut off as acceptable in any medium, really sort it out it's real person for christ's sake."
Censorship is not the answer.
Personally I think censorship has a place in protecting the vulnerable. Children for instance have a right to be protected from disturbing and explicit images. In the main, it is parents who have that responsibility, not Facebook, Google or BigWogglers.Net. If you are relying on Facebook to protect your child, then you are already failing (because it is simply not possible for FB to do so effectively).
On the other side, do adults have a right to be protected from seeing the consequences of their actions? Hiding from people the bloodbath horrors that results from Drone Strikes in Pakistan, or the tens of thousands of deaths every year in Mexico as a result of the "War on Drugs", seems to me to be very wrong. So often the cry of people is "If *only* I had known". That simply isn't compatible with "hide away all the horror" and IMO, people must have the right to information which allows them to make an informed judgement.
I think that is a tautology constructed around your definition of "decent". I don't think there is a simple answer and I doubt you can justifiably characterise everyone who "wants" as "indecent" for wanting to make their own judgement (which necessitates watching it).There is an element of (wait for the yelling and screaming here) pandering to the worst dregs of society here as well. Why would any decent human being want to watch such horror is beyond me.
"The Act of Killing" a while back. It is a most profoundly disturbing film. The subjects quite obviously have a different intent in participating than the creators. Who's intent wins?
Witch's statement might read for that film "Why would any decent human being want to sit and watch men who perpetrated evil on a huge scale, justify themselves and celebrate their acts". For me that answers the question of intent, at least to say that the intent of (x) is not always a factor.
X-13 Tell me. If you believe that parents are entirely responsible for their children (other than in school or whatever), then a) what about the poor children who do NOT have parents who help them or support them. Also, if you were walking down a street and a child got away from its parent and started to head for a busy road, would you really not stop them? I'm sure you would, but that is the extrapolation of your "its the parents responsibility" spiel.
I think @AngryTechnician s point about Facebook having the right to censor their own website - especially in the light of the minors who are on there is a very good one. Yes, children can search about to find this stuff, as can anyone else, but perhaps Facebook should take a stand because of their readership.
Last edited by witch; 23rd October 2013 at 08:40 PM.
The point is perhaps context - intent and impact. If I give a 3 year old child a cuddly toy gazelle and encourage them to personalise and love it and then show them graphic footage of one being eaten - how does that compare to showing the death of a human to a war veteran experienced with horror and death? Better or worse?and there is not really any comparison between humans being killed and animals doing what animals do - killing for food.
Is that fair? Of course most people would stop the child. The question is really what is the parents expectation - a more correct comparison might be that they expect someone else *should* stop the child (and they can let their child run free because other people should do that).Also, if you were walking down a street and a child got away from its parent and started to head for a busy road, would you really not stop them? I'm sure you would, but that is the extrapolation of your "its the parents responsibility" spiel.
Which IMO is fair enough. It is not really a simple black and white question of censorship or not. I might want adults always to have the right to examine evidence for themselves and not be protected from it, while at the same time, I do want children to have a right to be children (and be protected from adult content). For me the real complexity comes with the issue of education. An expectation that people can suddenly deal with horrific evidence at an arbitrary age is unrealistic. But how do people learn to deal with such things without exposure to them/awareness of them? And how can you expect Facebook to arbitrate that better than parents?I think @AngryTechnician s point about Facebook having the right to censor their own website - especially in the light of the minors who are on there is a very good one. Yes, children can search about to find this stuff, as can anyone else, but perhaps Facebook should take a stand because of their readership.
[ETA- supposing FB proposed a solution based on a "watershed" - content moderation based on a local bedtime norm. No one would be happy - parents would say "how dare *they* decide what is an acceptable bedtime from my little babes" and no one would really think such a thing was workable. But actually nothing but close parental supervision can protect children from the horrors available on the internet, so actually such a scheme would be no worse than any other].
Last edited by pcstru; 23rd October 2013 at 09:10 PM.
The "three year old with a toy gazelle" reinforces my argument. You cannot expect a three year old to understand nature red in tooth and claw, but neither should a 13 year old or even an adult have to be faced with watching a murder because they can understand it (and can they? I doubt it)
With regards to FB watershed - FB doesnt have to have a solution that makes anyone "happy". It should do what it needs to do to protect the minors it allows on the site. There was an article somewhere - can't find it now that mentioned "corruption of minors" or something similar as being something that campaigners can use to stop FB allowing such content on a site.
After reading this thread I'd be interested to know which of you have children and which don't. My guess is that the majority of those arguing against censorship don't.
Sunnyknight (24th October 2013)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)