Reference no: EM133735701

Discussion Post: Banning Harmful Material & People

As noted in Pornography, Harm, and Censorship (SE), censorship can be simply defined as an effort to suppress purportedly "harmful" expression. Some claim that censorship is morally justified due to the "harms" it stops/prevents. Others claim that censorship is not morally justified due to the "harms" it causes. We have encountered reasons for each claim. In the end, it's possible that each group is at least partially right. It could be that censoring/suppressing some expressions/actions is morally okay. While at the same time censoring/suppressing other types of expressions/actions could be morally wrong.

Determining which expressions to give 'free rein' to and which to cast into the banned rubbish bin is often a bit more challenging than one might think. Suppose that one is certain that, e.g., social media posts and/or social media accounts that encourage/glorify real human trafficking via including images of real traffickers and trafficked people need to be censored/banned. Now suppose that an advertisement for a new video game includes games images of certain game characters being trafficked, enslaved, etc. The game is cast in a fantastical setting where elves are trafficking, enslaving, etc., dragons. The promotional material for the game definitely seems to be promoting how fun, exciting, etc., the game is and seems to be encouraging everyone to play it. Would these types of promotional materials also need to be censored/banned? They don't seem to be encouraging the trafficking, enslavement, etc., of real people, just dragons. But then, might some viewers of the material get the "wrong message" and not be able to clearly separate video game fiction from real world fact and begin to think that if it's okay in the game, then why not give it a try in reality, etc.? What is one to morally do?

Banning the real trafficking posts might still seem like the "right" move but what about the fantasy game promo posts? Would it be "fair" to ban one and not the other? What kind of "message" might that send to users of the site, platform, etc.? Might consistency demand that, if any banning is to happen, then both must go? If both, then where does the banning stop? What if a few days later a new song is released that seems to include allusions/metaphors to human trafficking but never explicitly mentions such. But, it's possible that someone might, after listening to it, walk away with the "wrong message" yet again. Must this song now be banned as well? Not to mention the accounts of the real traffickers, video game developers, musician/band. Surely, if their posts must go, then they must go to....correct? Although these scenarios may seem 'far-fetched', they and many more like them are precisely the sort of judgement calls that social media, website, etc., censors must make on a daily basis. During this week's discussion, everyone in the class will have the opportunity to 'play censor' and determine whether or not it's morally okay to ban certain expressions and/or types of expressions.

In all cases, assume that you have total censorious control. You don't have a manager telling you what to allow or censor, no corporate guidelines, definitions, rules, etc., that you must follow, etc. Assume that you are the sole owner/operator of the website, social media platform, etc.

Task

I. Should social media posts that include images/videos of real people in real places engaged in illegal activities (e.g., prostitution, drug dealing, gang violence, bank robbery, murder, etc.) be suppressed/banned? Your reasons? What if the images/videos of real people/places were replaced with images/animations of video game characters engaged in the same types of activities (as one will encounter in games in e.g., the Grand Theft Auto franchise)? Should posts containing those also be suppressed/banned? Your reasons?

II. What about posts between real people that could be perceived as "bullying"? Would it be morally okay to censor/ban those as well? If so, why so? If not, why not? For an added challenge, assume that you do not know the age, country of origin, culture, etc., of the people making the posts. What counts as "normal", "acceptable", etc., communication can differ from culture to culture, country to county, etc. How certain could one truly be that "bullying" was actually occurring within the posts? If uncertainty is present in a potential "bullying" post situation, would it be morally best to not censor/ban? Or, might taking a more 'err on the side of caution'/"harm"-prevention approach be better? Essentially, 'let it go if you don't know' or 'ban them all and never look back'? Your reasons?

III. Finally, what about posts that contains ideas, claims, images, etc., that you very strongly disagree with and find very "offensive", "hateful", etc.? Would it be morally okay to censor/ban them? Your reasons?