Monday, 25th January 2010
To censor or not to censor; what is the question?
To censor or not to censor; what is the question?
The current debate about censorship suffers from a common malady, i.e. confusion in the terms used and repetitiveness. However, should I write once more about the subject? Would it not be a case of flogging a dead horse?
The Bishop of Gozo, Mgr Mario Grech, came to my rescue. He introduced a new argument to the discussion. While addressing journalists on the feast of St Francis of Sales (21/01/10) he proposed the extension of the principle of precaution - a principle enunciated in a number of international documents - from the field of the environment to that of the media.
The precautionary principle
The Maastricht Treaty says this about the principle:
"Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies."
In simple terms Bishop's Grech argument run as follows:
- Those in authority decided that if something harms the environment they will withdraw it from the market.
- It is scientifically proven that some media products can be psychologically or morally harmful.
- We are not empowered to critically assess what we read or view.
- Shouldn't then the authorities invoke the precautionary principle to withdraw from the market what can be deleterious to the educational process that society embarks on?
Bishop Grech's comparison of the physical environment with the mediascape finds an unexpected ally in the leftish media academic Cees Hamelink. In an article published in the European Journal of Communication (1995. Vol. 10 (4): 497-512), the Dutch academic wrote:
"One could also argue that the degree of concern vis-à-vis this secondary environment (i.e. the human-made cultural environment in which the mass media are crucial tools) is a matter of moral choice. If people withdraw from this concern, they make the choice not to take responsibility for its quality. ... By and large people are worried more about the killing of whales than about the killing of minority TV programmes" (page 502)
In his article Hamelink notes that as the law regulates only a part of human activity action - my comment: and it cannot do otherwise without risking despotism - action by professionals in the field and audiences is essential to guarantee "the quest for professional freedom, quality and responsibility in media performance" (p. 498).
Media professionals can give their contribution though channels of self-regulation while audiences can contribute by personal and individual decisions as well as through lobby groups.
Hamelink refers to freedom, quality and responsibility. I think that the content of contemporary debates is privileging freedom over and about the two other very important aspects i.e. quality and responsibility. Isn't the exercise of freedom without responsibility open to abuse even of freedom? Isn't the dumping of bad quality programmes a minus that society has to do something about?
Alternatives to censorship
Let us return to Malta and the current debate. What are the best avenues open to society in its quest to protect itself in line with the precautionary principle?
In Malta, there is no censorship of newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. I have heard of no one suggesting that it should be introduced. Generally pre-publication or pre-broadcast decisions in the area are taken by editors or editorial boards. Such a filter does not exist in the use of the Internet and satellite reception of TV.
Such use is under the total control and discretion of the individuals themselves. This means that in the case of the most used and popular media there is no censorship. Please remember that around 99% of households have at least one TV set and around 70% of homes have access to the media.
Censorship in Malta concerns mainly the theatre, which is patronised by a relatively small number of people, the cinema which is patronised by thousands (but no where near the use made of TV) and (if I am not mistaken) foreign media print products not for personal use.
I am using the word "censorship" in its formal and strict sense. It happens when an authority outside a particular media organisation sets up a board which previews a media product or performance and decides whether it will be shown or not and if yes what ages could see it. In such cases, the state exercises the precautionary principle referred to by Bishop Grech by taking the preventive measure of censorship.
Is censorship by the state the only, or most effective tool that could be used?
If a broadcasting company takes over the editorial responsibility for the films and programmes it broadcasts and does not have to submit them to any external board cannot one hypothesise a similar strategy regarding plays in theatres? Cannot individual theatres be burdened themselves with such a task?
I think that to-day we should explore more ways of enlarging the scope of self-regulatory and co-regulatory regimes in the exercise of the precautionary principle instead of state censorship. I gladly concede that self-regulation is very weak in our country and co-regulation does not even exist in this sector. Both can be looked at as possible alternatives to state censorship.
This would not imply that the state would not have any defence mechanisms whatsoever from the possible negative effects of media products which have negative content. In Malta's case, for example, the Broadcasting Authority has the right to fine erring stations.
Obscenity and libel laws are just two other examples of the battery of tools that the state can use. However, it is important that such tools should not remain static. They should reflect the changes that society goes through and therefore, should, be updated from time to time to reflect the prevailing values and attitudes of society. I do not think that there is anyone who contests the fact that what was considered to be obscene or objectionable thirty years ago is not necessarily so considered to-day.
Media education
Bishop Grech referred to people's lack of ability to critically assess what they read or watch. I agree with him that it is imperative that people be empowered to critically assess what they read or watch. This is the way forward considering that technology will continue making state controls more and more difficult if not impossible to achieve. Paradoxically the commercialisation of the media would imply that control by commercial interests will, most probably, continue to be greater than what should be acceptable in a democratic society.
Together with others, I have been working on media education since 1980. The Media Centre of the Archdiocese of Malta was instrumental in the introduction of media education in Church schools and there are different studies showing that the programme had positive effects on students.
It is a pity that it now seems that the restructured Media Centre has renounced (at least de facto) the paternity of the project. It is also a pity that the Secretariat for Social Communications is way behind the targets which the Archdiocese has set for the sector. I hope that, at least, the Gozo Seminary, which is under the direct responsibility of Bishop Grech has the programme of media education developed in Malta as a regular part of its ordinary curriculum.
RSS
Comments
Yes i will clarify something to you. Number one childporn must be punished immediately with extremely harsh penalties because it is sick and i do not have any mercy for people in this business.Number 2 yes, the church is always deciding what and not to do and to see,the church is trying to get in our lives in a way or another but the time is closing down as people now have the right to choose instead like 20 30 40 50 years ago when we were always told what to do.I am a follower of God and Jesus but not of the church because that is manmade.
""@ Jason Coleiro. "why should you censor anything when you got internet at hand?" Would you let child porn go uncensored?""
Please tell me I am dreaming!!! I really cannot understand why you keep insisting on this when many people have pointed it out to you. Child pornography is not something to censor but to eliminate - THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST ABUSE OF CHILDREN AND SEX WITH CHILDREN IS ALWAYS ABUSE. Now let's see how many days pass before you say "would you let child pornography go uncensored again".
While not particulary attracted by porn, I do know many people who are simply drawn to it like magnets, how do you censor that?
How do you censor the abominable child porn? That's an illegal happening...and still, sadly, it happens...
How do you censor drug making or bomb assembling?
My worried answer is.... You simply can't!
The internet is too far reaching and impersonal to censor...you simply do not know who is behind things. The options as always include..
1. Not making too much out of things that could pass as innocuous for others.
2. Use sensibility
3. Try not to hurt others with your deeds
As always education is the main drive here...
One lacks debating power when veering away from an original point. The original point was 'precautionary principles' by a man of the cloth who, I understand, objected to a parody of christ but not, as I understand it, the destruction of a rare aquifer for money and did not make a fuss about a paedophile priest a few doors away (stand to be corrected on this naturally). So, how many times does one have to repeat that censorship is unnecessary provided the 'vulnerable' are protected (the vulnerable being also 'mature' adults who think that self-flagellating self-harm will win them points). With appropriate laws in place, the average normal intelligent human is not held back simply for the sake of the vulnerable (and not so vulnerable) to remain in control, all to no avail. Get it Vella? I can not put that in plainer English if I tried (as if I would - what am I, some twit in an enforced state of infantilism? As we say in West London - go jump!)
As for the popularity of the blog. Of course it is popular and attracts a lot of traffic. But traffic is a double-edged sword. It gets one from A to B, eventually and that has to be good. It also churns up noxious fumes and throws up many uncomfortable, to some, home-truths. That is the nature of the beast. No light-hearted banter there, that's for sure.
Those forbidden by decree not to exercise their right AND RESPONSIBILITIES of this inescapable legacy called the human drive to mate had better not meddle in things they know nothing about other than the biblical forbidden fruit, punto e bast. If they do indulge, - and that would be a good thing because then, at least, theyd be able to spout with some coherence - they need to make sure that they do not get found out. But at least they can rest assured that if they are, then at least friends in high places will be able to shield them somehow. It has happened.
cont./
continued
continued
don't worry Jess, we're not much different. After all you only believe in one more god than I do :)
To be fair though, muslims and jews think that christians believe in three gods, but that's another story for another day.
Have you ever heard of the term "Special Pleading"? In simple terms this means double-standards which is what all religious people like you seem to do all the time without blinking an eyelid. You seem to have the capacity of thought and are fully capable of applying it to everyday life things, but yet ignore the same measures when it comes to religion. Let me give an example. Would you think it woud be fair and just to punish someone for the crime of his father, grandfather or great-grandfather? Would you think it would be fair to punish someone else in your place? I guess not, yet this system of justice is the basis of your faith, and the supposedly all-loving god you believe in "HAD TO" send his son/himself (????) to be slaughtered in order to "save you" from the punishment you deserved because your great-great-great (you get the idea) ancestor sinned.
Joseph A Borg wrote: "so you admit that you cannot simply accept what an institution tells you".
To which you replied: "And why not.?".
Come on, Jessica! You must know the answer to that. You already made it clear that you do not approve of the selling of indulgences. So you must agree that you cannot accept what an institution tells you just because it tells you so. You don't have to be an atheist to know an obvious fact.
I can take that as a compliment (according to my logic of course)!
I leave it up to you to read between the lines. Or should I “back up (my) argument otherwise it's a rant.”?
so you admit that you cannot simply accept what an institution tells you. You still have to apply some critical thought to it.”
And why not.?
M’inhiex moghoza! Naf nahseb! (Ghalkemm m’iniex ateista)
“You weren't being specific about who's 'moral fiber' you're talking about. You can talk about yours, when referring to anybody else please quote the figures or studies that back up your argument otherwise it's a rant.”
Had you been following the discussion properly, you probably would have got the gist. There are some things taken as understood, unless you need to be spoon-fed. (Incidentally that word is getting to be a buzz word on this blog. I wonder who started it!
By the way, you would have been spared all this if you had looked up the meaning of "speciesism".
"Kenneth in BOTH instances I can say out loud “I NEVER SAID THAT”".
Since I believe that you are as yet unable (and not unwilling) to understand, I'll try to explain it more simply through a logical sequence. It is perhaps true that you never SAID that. However, it is implied by what you DID say.
You made it clear enough that:
1. Non-human animals may be used as property (you mentioned horses) because they are not rational (or less rational than humans).
2. I have given proof that some non-human animals are more rational than humans.
3. Unless you resort to "but they are just animals" or some other reason you have yet failed to give, your conclusion would have to be that some humans may be treated as property (if this hinges on their level of rationality). The alternative would be that humans may not be treated as property BECAUSE they are humans. Isn't this another way of saying that "animals" are "just animals"?
This is not playing foul. Its not playing around with words. It's logic.
I will ignore the rest of the diatribe while awaiting your response.
You weren't being specific about who's 'moral fiber' you're talking about. You can talk about yours, when referring to anybody else please quote the figures or studies that back up your argument otherwise it's a rant.
Morality is a very vague word to be lumped with the marketing term 'fresh' or the propaganda term 'truth'. I don't think it's very moral of the church to hide pedophiles, reduce women to second class members, actively prohibit the use of contraceptives in poor, overpopulated 3rd world countries, actively discriminate against people with alternative lifestyles, including job opportunities.
Maybe you're confusing past social strictures with morals. Until very recently victims of abuse had to suffer in silence to keep up appearances or face the opprobrium of society. The victim not the perpetrator! St Maria Goretti is a glaring example!
didn't want to single you out, but you're the only one that offers views from the opposite side of the debate. Don't see Fr Joe much here
"Regarding the selling of indulgences, I will not find anything positive about it because I do not approve of it (at least as far as I can understand it’s necessity)."
so you admit that you cannot simply accept what an institution tells you. You still have to apply some critical thought to it.
"With hindsight, that is very easy to answer - slavery is always an evil whether it was practiced at the time you have in mind or even today".
So you must allow the possibility that with hindsight, humans in the future (if animal slavery is abolished) might say that animal slavery was always an evil, whether practiced at the time or today.
"What’s more I do not think it was even fair to set them free at the age of 40..."
The specifics of the analogy or example I gave are not important. The point I was making is that human slavery abolitionists did not seek a "middle-way" compromise with the pro-slavery people. They sought total abolition, even though it was considered "extremist" at the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8492597.stm
I cannot understand how moderate catholics condone this behavior. Nobody is forcing the church to elect a woman pope.
First of all I do not think I rant half as much as a few on this blog.
Regarding the selling of indulgences, I will not find anything positive about it because I do not approve of it (at least as far as I can understand it’s necessity).
Regarding moral fibre, I meant the strength of conviction that one has regarding proper conduct/behaviour (me included, of course).
My actual words were: “It is enough to look around you to see how the moral fibre has been stretched so out of shape and weakened so much that it can no longer bear its own weight. It is disintegrating, and as a result we are unable to withstand negative influences.”
What has the following, “We have social services, socialized medicine, pensions, disability pensions, mostly introduced by socialist governments in Europe. You're a woman! the rights of women have never been better and real equality is finally within grasp where's the woman pope? is that moral?” (your quote), to do with my quote above?
Your last comment almost made me wish there was really a heaven. It would have been priceless to see the looks on the faces of the people who bought such indulgences, when they realize at the pearly gates that they'd been ripped off!!!!!
On the rest about censorship I am in total agreement and I would add that this issue is somewhat similar to the divorce issue. All those in favour of censorship and against the introduction of divorce are Catholics. So if their leader, the pope, says they should not see something or get a divorce, that should be enough, no? Why should they drag the rest of us with them? We owe no allegiance to the pope or to the archbishop.
"With hindsight, that is very easy to answer - slavery is always an evil whether it was practiced at the time you have in mind or even today".
So you must allow the possibility that with hindsight, humans in the future (if animal slavery is abolished) might say that animal slavery was always an evil, whether practiced at the time or today.
"What’s more I do not think it was even fair to set them free at the age of 40..."
The specifics of the analogy or example I gave are not important. The point I was making is that human slavery abolitionists did not seek a "middle-way" compromise with the pro-slavery people. They sought total abolition, even though it was considered "extremist" at the time.
”Previously you said you wouldn't dismiss an "animal" as "just an animal". Now you're saying that even though some "animals" are more rational than some humans (and you tie up rights with rationality and intelligence), you dismiss them because they are "just animals". At least be consistent.”
Kenneth in BOTH instances I can say out loud “I NEVER SAID THAT”.
If you are trying to play FOUL I will not accept it. Don’t try to play around with words because I believe I can match you, and what’s more I will be telling the truth. So Let us stop there or else this discussion risks becoming a farce. So far it has been balanced and enjoyable. Let’s not pollute it!!!!!
For those who want to verify my comments I beseech you to do so.I will not have anyone besmirching my integrity.
Is THAT the morality of an atheist?!!!!
”Previously you said you wouldn't dismiss an "animal" as "just an animal". Now you're saying that even though some "animals" are more rational than some humans (and you tie up rights with rationality and intelligence), you dismiss them because they are "just animals". At least be consistent.”
Kenneth in BOTH instances I can say out loud “I NEVER SAID THAT”.
If you are trying to play FOUL I will not accept it. Don’t try to play around with words because I believe I can match you, and what’s more I will be telling the truth. So Let us stop there or else this discussion risks becoming a farce. So far it has been balanced and enjoyable. Let’s not pollute it!!!!!
For those who want to verify my comments I beseech you to do so.I will not have anyone besmirching my integrity.
Is THAT the morality of an atheist?!!!!
Censorship is a limit on personal liberties. You're implying that censorship is there and shouldn't be removed because the Church says so. The church used to sell indulgences as well, I'm sure you'll find something positive about that.
You're just repeating yourself all the time with rants and personal opinion laced with a bit of closed mindedness eg:
"It is enough to look around you to see how the moral fibre has been stretched so out of shape and weakened so much that it can no longer bear its own weight"
What a load of bull! Where do you want me to start debunking your argument? We have social services, socialized medicine, pensions, disability pensions, mostly introduced by socialist governments in Europe. You're a woman! the rights of women have never been better and real equality is finally within grasp where's the woman pope? is that moral? Sweeping statements without any basis in fact reduces the value of your argument.
I wrote: “Finally, to say that some non-human animals are more rational than some humans (the severely mentally disabled, for instance), is not to say that I have no faith in human rational abilities".
You replied: "As regards the quote above, I feel it does not warrant an answer, and it seems that what I had understood upon reading it the first time was correct ,after all, so my answer remains the same: “I would be grossly insulted to be put in the same category" (With or without my full mental capacity)".
But the question is: Is it (what I wrote) true? Too often the religious mind, when faced with the stark truth, seeks the refuge of "taking offense". Religious faith is indeed a stumbling block on the path of critical and rational thinking.
Here's something to read that might make my point clearer about putting humans and non-human animals in the same "category":
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/dawkins01.htm
"Everything that the Church proposes must be countered by an ideology that goes directly against its grain, hence the insistence on the abolition of censorship under the pretext of freedom of expression".
Please stop saying nonsense and creating straw men. I would still be against censorship if the Church never even existed. Just because you sneaked in the word "hence" does not make opposition to censorship follow from a real or imaginary opposition to the Church.
"I would be grossly insulted to be put in the same category".
Like it or hate it, all humans are Great Apes, sharing a common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees. Of course, you have every right to be offended by this fact, but it would do you good to be humble enough to acknowledge it.
Originally I wrote that humans aren't the only rational beings; that not all humans are rational; and that some non-human animals are more rational than some humans. I thought this was clear enough.
Evidently, however, I had to spoon-feed what I meant by "some non-human animals are more rational than some humans", so I gave an obvious example (that of severely mentally disabled humans).
No contradiction. I still believe most humans are rational and many humans are critical thinkers. I also still hold that some non-human animals are more rational than some humans (and thus making rights dependent on attributes such as rationality is dangerous to some humans). Where is the contradiction?
If I had a severely mentally disabled relative, I would be more insulted if someone told me that rights are dependent on the individual's rational powers (in essence saying that the mentally disabled have no rights).
Previously you said you wouldn't dismiss an "animal" as "just an animal". Now you're saying that even though some "animals" are more rational than some humans (and you tie up rights with rationality and intelligence), you dismiss them because they are "just animals". At least be consistent.
Part 2.
How could they be expected to adapt away from the family.“It is true that a slave came under the master’s power to punish, and could be beaten, whipped or thrown in jail: so however, could his wife and children. – (The world of Renaissance Florence).”
But to give you a clear-cut answer: I would have abolished slavery.
In fact I would concentrate more on abolishing modern day slavery! At least, about that, we can still lobby against, for it is very much a modern curse.
“What is Modern Slavery - Women from eastern Europe are bonded into prostitution, children are trafficked between West African countries and men are forced to work as slaves on Brazilian agricultural estates. Contemporary slavery takes various forms and affects people of all ages, sex and race.” Read more… http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx
Part 1.
With hindsight, that is very easy to answer - slavery is always an evil whether it was practiced at the time you have in mind or even today. What’s more I do not think it was even fair to set them free at the age of 40 when 40 was already considered old at the time. How could they be guaranteed to live the rest of their lives, when they had for 40 years been provided for by their masters. Keep in mind that not all slaves were treated inhumanely as you give us to understand. In fact slaves particularly domestic slaves were treated very much like the family. When they were offered freedom, they were often known to beg their masters to keep them in the family for that was the only family they knew and, believe it or not, respected.
Continued….
Kenneth I do not think that in your initial comment regarding the subject, you had narrowed it down to such an extreme so the contradictin still holds. As regards the quote above, I feel it does not warrant an answer, and it seems that what I had understood upon reading it the first time was correct ,after all, so my answer remains the same: “I would be grossly insulted to be put in the same category" (With or without my full mental capacity).
I can easily see how utilising the word "any" was easily misconstrued. I am most categorically against paedophilia, a most heinous crime, something which your own church unfortunately took so long to take action on. Kenneth Cassar has most convincingly argued this point that I cannot find a better way to put it. Harming children does not fall under censorship laws but under abuse which takes priority. However, between consenting adults, then everything is uncensorable in my books though I do draw a line at exploitation which again is abuse.
Some anarchist in this world will probably argue that all laws restrict our freedom of expression. This blog is too short for me to cover all the laws that I agree with and the laws I don’t. On a general note though you may rest assured that if the event, book, movie art etc is not regulated directly by law, then I will be totally against its censorship.
I seem to do better in a spoken debate than a written one. I hope that my message has come through.
Part 2.
Democracy is good but even there we tend to abuse of its tenets to suit our agenda.
Hatred for the church (not necessarily for God) as an institution, is blinding some to the finer qualities inherent in all of us.
Everything that the Church proposes must be countered by an ideology that goes directly against its grain, hence the insistence on the abolition of censorship under the pretext of freedom of expression.
I have succumbed to peer pressure and have been persuaded that classification suffices. I might regret it, but such is the way society shifts from one ideology to another. And that is supposed to be progress!
Part 1.
In fact, it is not about quality or taste. It is about the integrity of a person irrespective of whether he is a believer or not. Morality is not a believer’s prerogative. Man’s rational ability has more to do with it than some might think. But if we take off from a position that morality is a set of rules that we have to accept because it has been drummed into our minds by our religion when we were children, then we are tackling it from the wrong angle.
Not that we should have a grudge about that, to my way of thinking. It is enough to look around you to see how the moral fibre has been stretched so out of shape and weakened so much that it can no longer bear its own weight. It is disintegrating, and as a result we are unable to withstand negative influences.
Continued…..
point of interest: nowadays Newton is considered by many to be the last of the magicians, not the first modern scientist. He was strange in the sense that he must have had a mechanistic world view somehow, otherwise he wouldn't have contributed so much to science and mathematics. Yet he still believed in alchemy, magic potions, devils etc…
When under stress the mind falls into the magic mumbo jumbo trap. The popular rise of atheism could be attributed the prosperity most 1st world countries with socialized services live in.
"Kenneth sometimes you wear me down, not by the validity of your argument, but by your insistence to stick only to your point of view".
If the argument is valid, it is irrational not to stick to the point of view that comes from the argument.
"Your type of argumentation is not necessarily critical thinking for to think critically is to weigh other points of view as well".
I've spent over 25 years weighing all kinds of points of view regarding animal rights. And I am weighing all kinds of points of view here as well.
However, when I give an analogy like "what if we were living in the time of legal human slavery. Would you say that we should keep a sense of balance, and, let's say, liberate slaves only when they reach the age of 40?", you evade the question by saying that if we were living in the time of slavery, we wouldn't be considering the question.
Of course, this is demonstrably false, since if no one considered the question at the time, we would still have legal slavery. Change does not happen by itself.
Correction: Darwin, after the discovery of evolution through natural selection, was an atheist or at least an agnostic.
"Your type of argumentation is not necessarily critical thinking for to think critically is to weigh other points of view as well. I get the impression that you have adopted an ideology and do not intend to budge from it..."
You seem to forget that I have spent my childhood and teen years on mainstream thought regarding non-human animals. It is precisely critical thinking that brought me to discover the irrationality of mainstream thinking in this respect. I would willingly budge from the "ideology" if I am provided with reasoned arguments that make it wrong.
It is unreasonable to expect me to summarise a book-length philosophy in 200 words. I have already pointed to some books. Read those. In the meantime, if you want to ask further questions on the topic, you will find my email address in an earlier post.
Finally, to say that some non-human animals are more rational than some humans (the severely mentally disabled, for instance), is not to say that I have no faith in human rational abilities. No contradiction there.
"Calm down ... you'll be hard pressed to find instances of either mass child-abuse or female genital mutilation in Malta.
In some other nations where these horrendous practices are condoned, the World Health Organization has been doing sterling work to combat the root causes which happen to be anything but religious!
Just exactly, what do propose that the Pope, or President Obama, or Prime Minister Gonzi do that the WHO is not already doing?
This blog is about censorship. The case against it can be made without insulting its proponents. "
How is circumcision not a religious thing? Why do you only quote female genital mutilation? I was quite clear in my post and even put links (which I guess you missed) which support my claim that abuse does not only mean physical abuse but even the even worse kind - MENTAL ABUSE. Please show me where in my post I have insulted the proponents unless telling the truth does just that. Don't tell me that they cannot condemn things that do not happen in their countries because that would be a lie. Have they not publicly condemned the September 11 attacks?
Calm down ... you'll be hard pressed to find instances of either mass child-abuse or female genital mutilation in Malta.
In some other nations where these horrendous practices are condoned, the World Health Organization has been doing sterling work to combat the root causes which happen to be anything but religious!
Just exactly, what do propose that the Pope, or President Obama, or Prime Minister Gonzi do that the WHO is not already doing?
This blog is about censorship. The case against it can be made without insulting its proponents.
@Jessica DeBattista
It's not about quality or taste. There was a time when Verdi was ridiculed because his music was easily whistled by the man on the street. There are those who would not pay a penny for a Picasso (unless, of course, it's an investment).
We need to distinguish between editorial-prerogative and (State-)censorship. The editor is free to present whatever is deemed to fit the publication; and what is acceptable to one may be shunned by another. Censorship, on the other hand, corrals everyone into the same corner ... a form of tyranny which has no place in a democratic society.
What about genital mutilation (circumcision)? Is that not abuse? Yet the Church (with it's 2 billion members) has a position of power, due to numbers and can make pressure for this to stop and yet it does not because it's RELIGION. Evil can be accepted as long as it's with the blessing of RELIGION. If you really CARED about children you would be protesting with all your might against this and I, a non believer, would be right there with you. Think about it!!!
It is in our nature to be influenced by whatever we are exposed to and we respond accordingly. So the regulators are in a way leading the contributors in a track which is more likely to be beneficial.
For instance, as I write I am listening to Celine Dijon singing “The Power of Love” and “Because you Loved me”, and though I am not actively listening, for I am involved in writing this comment, yet, the music and the lyrics are exerting their fascination upon me. Now we can get fascinated by other less noble artistic expressions. We might think that it is up to us to make our own choices. And in a way I agree but our choices are not really our choices at all. They are simply a reflection of the society we are bred in.
Part 1.
Self-regulation/co-regulation – Take the moderators at the “Times” for instance. They exercise their right to regulate the way the discussion is likely to develop. If there are posts with the sole aim of besmirching or ridiculing, either fellow contributors or, what’s worse, people in authority they can choose not to publish them. This does not mean that they refuse publication according to their agenda but it is because they have to assess objectively whatever is submitted, based upon their experience in the matter. This can hardly be called censorship! It is merely a lead based on their judgment. This panel of “judges” would have the foresight to know that certain comments are not likely to add to the betterment of the blog so why include them? They are simply protecting the public from being fed trash.
Continued….
Are you saying that child pornography made without the abuse of real children is OK? Therefore are you suggesting child pornography in the form of an animated cartoon (2D or the more realistic 3D) is acceptable? Is written child pornography acceptable to you?
In my opinion all forms of child pornography is abhorrent and should be banned from publication and distribution.
To my fellow non-believers, please ease off a bit with your criticism of blind-faith and such. Science is not, after all, the sum-total of human experience. Besides, scientists such as, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur -- to name but a few -- were quite religious. And no one can accuse any of them as having been either irrational thinkers or of practicing their religious beliefs in blind-faith.
As to the topic at hand, censorship is unwarranted, whether it is about pornography or bad literature. In Malta, censorship is entrenched in Article 208 of the Criminal Code. It should be repealed.
Child-pornography is a different matter and should never be conflated with adult-pornography. A section of the Criminal Code adequately covers child-pornography and rightly so.
Let's keep things in focus. Adult-pornography and bad/obscene literature concern no one other than those who produce or buy them. With due respect to the Gozitan Bishop, it's not for him to decide what individual adults ought to write/produce or read. Invoking the "precautionary principle" is a leap into absurdity. Censorship? Bah, humbug!
What is pornography? Dictionary definition: "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display…intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings"
The first part is about symbols, not actual people. Symbols ARE interpreted differently by different people. I am not going to judge you if you get excited by a decollete or an exposed ankle Fr Joe. The sexual energy is part of our natural makeup. Your middle-eastern religion made sex and women taboo because of the needs of nomadic tribesmen moving in tents whilst trying to avoid becoming cuckolds… we're still suffering their misogyny today!
continued
As I mentioned in a previous post: if there's a criminal act, then it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
If children are being physically or mentally abused then the perpetrators should be punished to the full extent of the law.
If children are being used/abused for gain, including child labour, lack of health & education then the perpetrators should be prosecuted as well.
…and not only children
Pictures are pictures are pictures. you cannot criminalize what happens between the eyes and the ears, because then you become the thought police. I urge you to read or at least see Minority Report (Tom Cruise notwithstanding)
OK! If we were living in the time of legal human slavery, we wouldn’t even be considering the abolition of slavery because the time was not yet rife. Societal changes, in general, happen ever so gradually that one is not even aware of them at the time.
Similarly, up to relatively few years ago, we wouldn’t have dreamt of openly admitting that we watch or read pornography since the subject was taboo. Nowadays pornography, under the pretext of freedom of expression, democracy, and whatever else, is blatantly thrown into our faces (pseudo-literary publications available to all and sundry). What’s more we are vociferous against its censorship. It seems that now the time is rife.
The difference is that where a society which had accepted the evil of slavery, progressed to a better society, another society (ours) which had generally shunned pornography has regressed to the acceptance of the evil of pornography.
Upon re-reading your comment I realized that I must have been too rash to answer and consequently, I must have misunderstood your comment. I don’t suppose you meant to put animals and the handicapped in the same category which is the way it sounded to me upon first reading it. If that is the case, I apologize
Does a secondary (cultural) environment exist and do we have to take responsibility for its quality? If no, why not and if yes, how?
Is it true that we are not giving as much importance to quality and responsibility as we give to freedom?
What are the alternatives to censorship and how can society protect itself in line with the precautionary principle?
A sure sign of poor debating skills is when one is unable to stick rigorously to the subject.
Your reply to Stefan Vella and Joseph A Borg. is a typical tactic that is used by your institution - the church. When you have no real argument you rely on the ignorance of the people (who are basically ignorant because you have taught them to be so) in order to wriggle out of the issue. Child pornography (for the millionth time) is not something to censor but something to stop producing since it violates (not sometimes but always) already existing laws of consent. I can understand why you find it hard to understand this concept of consent since your religious institution abuses the minds (and sometimes even the bodies) of children from the day they are born (without consent - since minors can NOT give consent). If the church or any other religion only preached and baptised adults of consenting ages, I would have no problem with you. But this would not suit you or your church since if adult minds are not polluted by religion from birth, you would not have any control on them which is what you can't afford to lose!
Belated reply to La Debattista . ' “Ms Debattista, mostly you choose to ignore me as not intellectual - as if!' - 'as if negates any claims I may have sounded to be making to intellectualism. Practical thinker, yes. But intellectual! jamais, giammai! You say you do not engage because a) you do not understand me (as too intellectual? what a back-handed complement) and b) what you, presumably, do understand you see as sarcasm and 'threatening'. You give with one hand and take with the other Jess. A double whammy! Me, threatening? as if"(again). Let it not be said. I would suggest that that which unsettles us we often dismiss as sarcastic, not worth bothering with. I am surprised you have not heard of 'il-mistoqsija oht il-gherf' Jess (thanks ma). But please no questions about fat cats and domineering ring-masters with rhinestoned whips.
"Are you in favour of allowing hate language go on unabeted or controlled?"
This would depend on the content and context. One would have to define hate language first. For instance I find a lot in the Bible I would classify as hate language (particularly the "old testament"). Should we ban the bible? The only clear and cut case where speech should be banned is incitement to violence (although you'll find plenty of that in the old testament too).
"Does this mean that you (Stefan Vella) are infavour of pornography including the use of children?".
If the pornography includes children, that would fall under the law already in place against sexually abusing children. This is why movies involving sex with children are illegal in all European countries (at least), while books on paedophilia or child abuse (including fiction involving paedophilia and child abuse) are not.
"Are you against the laws that there exist in many countries that you cannot keep on your computer for your personal use pornography using children?"
I don't assume he is, since keeping pictures of child porn (since children cannot be considered as adults capable of giving free and informed consent) is itself child abuse. To explain: If I agree to give an adult a picture of me naked, there would be no problem with this. However, if someone finds a picture of me naked and distributes it without my consent, that would be illegal. Children cannot give informed consent.
Cont...
Take this as an exercise in critical thinking.”
Kenneth, what sort of a question is this? How can you even contemplate the rights of animals with the rights of the handicapped? I would be grossly insulted to be put in the same category.
Does this imply that according to you animals fall short of being humans because they are handicapped?
I don’t know! But if you are expecting some sort of critical thinking from me about something so banal, permit me to opt out.
Part 2.
Granted that you are vehemently against censorship and maybe the sign of the times is pointing in the direction that it will be abolished - whether we’ll regret it, is a different story.
But to state something like the quote above, specifically “…some non-human animals are more rational than some humans …”, when earlier on you chastised me about my saying that “we have to acknowledge that the general public is, in fact, not in a position to judge critically.”, I cannot but wonder how you expect me to take all that you say seriously!
In this line of critical thinking, when you say “that animals at times are more rational than humans”, how can you expect the general public to think critically and make good decision when you, yourself, do not in fact have any faith in their rational abilities?
Can’t you see the contradiction?
Part 1.
Kenneth sometimes you wear me down, not by the validity of your argument, but by your insistence to stick only to your point of view. Your type of argumentation is not necessarily critical thinking for to think critically is to weigh other points of view as well. I get the impression that you have adopted an ideology and do not intend to budge from it, so your argument is already flawed for it is not an argument at all but a series of emphatic statements which will support only your point of view. In ancient philosophy, people like you were called “sophists”. They were very highly regarded at the time for they made good lawyers. But in a discussion such as this we are not arguing a case but trying to weigh the pros and cons of censorship.
Continued…..
"We have to keep a sense of balance - the Golden mean (Aristotle)".
In some things we do have to keep a sense of balance. But in questions of rights, we shouldn't. For instance, what if we were living in the time of legal human slavery. Would you say that we should keep a sense of balance, and, let's say, liberate slaves only when they reach the age of 40? Thankfully the anti-slavery abolitionists did not "keep a sense of balance" and demanded the liberation of all slaves.
Incidentally, it might surprise you to learn (or perhaps you know already) that Aristotle thought slavery was natural, and even defended it in his writings. See: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html
As for the popularity of the blog. Of course it is popular and attracts a lot of traffic. But traffic is a double-edged sword. It gets one from A to B, eventually and that has to be good. It also churns up noxious fumes and throws up many uncomfortable, to some, home-truths. That is the nature of the beast. No light-hearted banter there, that's for sure.
Those forbidden by decree not to exercise their right AND RESPONSIBILITIES of this inescapable legacy called the human drive to mate had better not meddle in things they know nothing about other than the biblical forbidden fruit, punto e bast. If they do indulge, - and that would be a good thing because then, at least, theyd be able to spout with some coherence - they need to make sure that they do not get found out. But at least they can rest assured that if they are, then at least friends in high places will be able to shield them somehow. It has happened.
continued
continued
"It seems like animals are getting to be more important than humans".
I'm sorry but I have to press you further on this. How do you conclude that non-human animals are getting to be more important than humans? Would one be making the handicapped more important than children if he/she defends the handicapped's rights?
Take this as an exercise in critical thinking.
Regarding your opposition to allowing pornography to infiltrate all forms of communications, this is only because you have already prejudjed all pornography as inherently "evil". Once you concede that not all pornography is evil, filters and other means of protecting the young would be sufficient. Children should not watch porn just as they should not consume alcohol, even though they are not bad for adults.
As for "censorship on child pornography", I agree, but I would not call that censorship. I would call it protecting children from being sexually abused (and it doesn't have to be in film. We shouldn't ban child pornography because people should not watch it. We ban it because children should not be sexually abused. But if you want to call it censorship, I have no problem with that.
Losing our sense of perspective? Not at all. I've been told millions of times that "It seems animals are getting to be more important than humans". First of all, humans are animals, so that statement doesn't even make sense. Secondly, the "hierarchy" you mention is an imaginary one invented by humans. Evolution does not work in hieararchies. It works in adaptation and differentiation. One species (actually, most individuals of one species) are good at one thing, others at another. And to say that humans are the only rational beings (while demonstrably false - not all humans are rational, and not all non-human animals are irrational - some non-human animals are more rational than some humans), this has nothing to do with the right not to be treated as things or property. Otherwise, by the same standards, some humans could justifiably end as property.
I am not proposing setting all animals free. Only ending their exploitation (stopping breeding them for human purposes). If you find this too extreme, I'm sorry you'll have to read some books on animal rights (I've already suggested two). Explaining further would take too much space here, and we're way off-topic anyway.
I think that instead of trying to solve this problem by censoring everything a bunch of 'wise' people don't like & they think that's against Morality (and one can see them the same things on Internet), it's better to enforce other laws. For example Child Abuses on Internet, Under age girls going around Paceville smoking & wearing nearly nothing (I'm sorry to say that all this happens in front of the Police, even though they always do an excellent work in everything else), tackle SERIOUSLY the smoking issue in the public places (Talking about PV, in every Disco/Pub you go in, from the Entrance door it's like you're going into a BAGNO TURCO with all that fog)& when to solve this problem, it takes only a WARDEN/POLICE per Disco/Pub going around in uniform all night. Then no-one will be so HERO to smoke & get a fine!!
Part 2.
I agree with classification, however, I still hold that censorship on child pornography – the basest form of pornography for it involves innocent unwilling victims - for instance, has to be enforced. Censorship on racial hatred is another.
By all means, critical thinking should be encouraged, and what’s more, it should be introduced as a subject in all schools, if it is not already in effect.
Part 1.
No Kenneth, I would not dismiss it just like that. You seem to forget that I happen to like animals and respect them. However, I think that we are losing our sense of perspective. It seems like animals are getting to be more important than humans. Man is a rational being and as such is higher on the hierarchy scale than an animal. That does not mean that animals do not have rights but we have to be realistic as well. What do you propose we do? – Set all the animals free? I have no problem with that, but would that be realistic? We have to keep a sense of balance - the Golden mean (Aristotle).
Incidentally this should be applied to the issue under discussion. If under the pretext of freedom of expression, we allow pornography to infiltrate all forms of communications, there is a great risk of tipping the scales more towards evil.
Continued…
Censoring by flooding garbage in the media is an effective method only if you consider the uneducated and especially those who lack viable "critical assessment" abilities. I prefer to sort out the garbage myself than having someone else decide what's garbage.
@K. Cassar - I'm well aware that a government can theoretically censor by filtering content through isp's. China is still attempting that solution and failing miserably. The issue is that muzzling the isp's is not enough. You have for example, to ban traveling to all citizens or otherwise some enterprising person will be back with a bypass to your filters. Ultimately, it takes a North Korean government to impose censorship somewhat effectively. Thankfully, we live in Western Europe and form part of the EU bloc.
To all intents and purposes, without a major change in european policy, censorship is obsolete.
If I had to put my paranoid hat on for example, I'd be inclined to think that US conservative money is buying up the good channels in the US (History, Discovery etc…) and simply flooding them with garbage pseudo science.
The only organizations still producing decent content are the BBC, PBS (US not Maltese) and other govt entities around the world squirreling money. In short it's the mandarins (civil servants) who are keeping the fight going in spite of big, moneyed corporations and fundie organizations peddling their narrow interests.
I know how to use wikipedia. However, what you understandably do not realise is that most information on non-human animals found on the internet is written by speciesist (look it up).
I'm sure that left to their own devices, horses would ask humans to carry their burdens (including the humans themselves), and to be used literally as machines, being literally forced to even walk wherever their owner (ring a bell?) wants them to; take part in dangerous races they do not choose to participate in (and risk injury and death as gratitude), etc (I won't take more space).
Perhaps you'll say "its just an animal". That's the source of the problem. Look up "speciesism". Or better still, read some animal rights literature.
I would recommend "Introduction to Animal Rights" by Gary L. Francione (Professor of Law and Nicholas de B. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University) or perhaps "The Case for Animal Rights" by Tom Regan ( Professor emeritus of Philosophy at North Carolina State University). I could give you a comprehensive list, but that should be enough for starters.
Oh and by the way.... if the government decides - He can censor the internet!! All the internet we receive at home, regardess of whether the sites are local or hosted abroad, are received through our ISP's servers. If a law was made to filter content and the ISP's were made to comply, it would not matter if the content was hosted on Mars, it still would have to go through the ISP and therefore would be blocked. That is unless you have a direct (thousands of euros worth) bandwidth pipeline to sicily at home which I doubt you have. Trust me, IT ismy line of work and has been for the last 12 years.
Well don't be so sure that things will stay that way. Australian Labour Party introduced a policy to have the internet filtered for all the country ISPs even though it has yet to be put in force because it has a lot of opposition and not enough votes in the senate. Now consider that scenario in Malta - where both the Government and the Opposition are puppets on the strings of the Church (and we know the church would approve censorship). This is exactly why we need to fight for our rights and oppose censorship. If it were for the church we would have been prohibited from watching Da Vinci Code, Avatar, Harry Potter etc like we were prohibited from watching "the last temptation of christ".
The internet may be policed but hardly censored. China is trying hard but cannot close the tsunami of data that floods it's citizens' computers. The only way to achieve this is to either shut down the world wide web or by having all the nations (no exceptions) agree on morality.
Critical thinking supported by education should be the only focus of this blog. Censorship as a concept has been rendered obsolete a couple of decades ago - it's just that some people still haven't realised it yet.
Kenneth, humans do not train horses violently to “instil fear and/or total submission”. I think you are over-reacting. Domesticated horses are handled at birth to get them used to human touch and voice. Eventually they are trained to allow a halter placed upon its head, taught to be led by a human at a walk and trot, to stop on command and to stand tied. It is also exposed to noise and commotion of ordinary human activity. It is taught to accept blankets placed on it etc. Everything is done at its own pace and with gentle perseverance.
Now if you prefer to think that man is a monster with animals, that is your perception.
I am not, however, excluding the possibility that some trainers are sadists, but horses are not stupid animals and they can retaliate.
Now please let’s stop here before we are admonished once again!
"Brave New World here we come with eyes wide open shut."
should read:
Brave New World here we come with eyes wide shut but for the internet and bookstores/libraries.
@ Jessica: an animal show act to be successful, by definition, would have to coerce the animal to do things it normally doesn't. Humans, hopefully, are doing it out of a personal drive to excel and succeed.
Don't want to sound rude, but I'm going to ignore comments here not pertinent to censorship and the specifics of Fr Joe's original post. This is not a forum as such
Two clarifications.
1. By "horses are wild animals", I mean that unlike dogs and cows (for instance), they have to be actively and progressively domesticated by humans, and are not born domestic.
2. My use of the term "violently trained" does not necessarily imply extreme violence such as severe beatings. I define coercion as a form of violence.
Well Kevin, i could write a whole book if i should put down everything but i though i was quite clear and without need of justification. Take a good look at the world around you (and you can go back in time for quite a while too). And tell me, have things changed much? lives, lifestyles and choices have been, are, and at this rate of 'critical thinking', will be censored.
I understand your point but i'm still confused about it being less relevant today especially since you mention Huxley's book. Internet changes the play but not the plot. I agree there are very good pros to internet, however, it also runs the risk of getting lost in endless conversations and information and neither is it totally free from struggles of power for example.
Also another thing that puzzled me was when you mention 'enlightened government', i have yet to come across one, or a truly democratic one (or i should rather say one struggling hard towards that) for that matter.
And yes, horses are wild animals, so training horses involves coercive acts. As for being "well treated", if by well-being one understands good food and medicine, then a a slave could be well-treated. Horses have never become fully domesticated. To learn to obey humans, they have to be violently trained, at least for as long as necessary to instil fear and/or total submission.
Dogs are different. While the great variety of dog breeds have been created through human-induced selective breeding, dogs' domestication came naturally in a symbiosis that benefitted both. This made it easier to train dogs without any use of violence whatsoever.
This is going way off topic, but since you mention it, I'll take the opportunity to clarify some things.
When one says that animals in circuses are not necessarily maltreated, one would be taking a very narrow view of maltreatment.
Apart from the hidden maltreatment that is required in training wild animals (ever wondered why the circus person holds a whip? Easy. The circus animal fears the whip. And how did the circus animal learn what a whip is, and what it does?), there are other things to keep in mind, such as the taking of animals from the wild (many times involving separation of mother from offspring), lenghty confinement in cages, long and continuous travel confined in small cages (often stacked on each other), etc.
Cont...
hope I understood you right, but that point is less relevant today. Printing heralded a new age a few hundred years ago that culminated with the enlightenment thanks to Diderot and his contributors.
Today we have the internet, and enlightened governments are at least making it accessible to all. Blogs and commentaries like this are making it easier to disseminate information. Standard media has become an agglomeration of cheap titillations to appease the sheeple's lack of interest in their precious lives. Brave New World here we come with eyes wide open shut.
Part 2
It is a joy also to watch dog contests where the spirit of competition is evident even in the stance of the dog itself before it is given the “Go” signal. There are signs, obvious to all, of the frenzied delight upon successfully carrying out the routine.
I am sure we have all had the occasion, at some time of our lives, to own a pet and to understand through their behaviour how they respond to our caresses. Domesticated animals are perfectly adapted to man’s world and seem to take it in their stride for them to be trained.
I think sometimes we carry our campaign to extremes.
Let it be known that I have three cats, in my garden, who must be the most overfed cats in Malta - I have actually given up thinking they are pregnant since they have been this fat for far too long. :-) That is by way of saying that I care about animals to forestall any accusation which might be coming my way.
I am digressing again, but this time, blame Joseph please!
Part 1.
Although I am against animals in captivity hence, in circuses because we understand that they are maltreated, which might or might not, be the case, yet there are other forms of animal displays/ exhibitions/shows where one wonders whether the animals in question are not, in fact, relishing the attention drawn to their antics.
I am fascinated by Dressage competitions, for instance, where the horses are evidently well treated. Would training such horses to perform such elegant routines be maltreating the animals? I do not think so. If an animal is predisposed to perform such exercises, it could mean that one is only developing a sort of “talent”. Why should man be the only “animal” to have talent?
Continued…….
"Although i agree a lot with what people like Kenneth Cassar and Joseph Borg have to say. I believe that critical thinking is far from being in order. That, or hypocrisy has taken the best of most."
It's perectly acceptable for everyone to have any belief they like with no need for any justification as long as it's their private thing. When this belief crosses the private line and becomes public it MUST be accompanied by justification. You are entitled to believe (secretly) that critical thinking is far from being in order, but when you put this in a public blog, up for argument, you need to justify your claims (irrespective of whether you are wrong or right). If I was say - abducted by aliens, it would be fine for me to believe that aliens exist, but I'd need some sort of evidence before I make my claim public. Hope you get my point.
"Adults talking about content in a context which they themselves had no choosing of".
Very true. That's why I say: Don't watch TV...read a book or watch a DVD. It even rhymes ;)
Some people have introduced children in the equation even though censorship is an adult topic. How to deal sensibly with children is not that complicated. When they are too young, and they can't understand right from wrong, you are bound to keep them away even from potential danger. As they get older, a responsible parent will teach them how to think (instead of what to think) so that they may develop the faculty to determine right from wrong. Later on at around 14-16 (depends on individual) they can make their own choices. I'd be worried about my child, if I did not raise him up well.
I quoted Baudelaire intentionally. I am glad you picked up on the nuance...
The argument here is whether or not something should be censored (banned) or not. Classification is another thing and everyone agrees it's a good and necessary thing. Funnily enough I have yet to see in this blog a positive argument for cesorship. Just saying it's wrong won't cut it. You have to provide evidence to support your argument (which is quite some task to people who base their beliefs on no evidence at all). You cannot say porn is harmful unless you have seen porn, and if you state that the harm is that it changes a person's viewpoint - and yet you have seen it and not changed yours - then you have just contradicted yourself. It's that simple!!! People who are harmed by it are the ones that are vulnerable to it because they have already a distorted idea. We all see violent films and yet most of us are not serial sadistic killers.
Yes, Baudelaire did write some crazy things. And yet, I am confident in saying that both you and I would not have banned his works ;) See?...at last something to agree on :)
Although i agree a lot with what people like Kenneth Cassar and Joseph Borg have to say. I believe that critical thinking is far from being in order. That, or hypocrisy has taken the best of most.
However, is it only me? have i really lost the plot or do you see it as i do? Adults talking about content in a context which they themselves had no choosing of. Don't be mistaken, I am against any form of censorship and even though i would not agree with what Tom, Dick (no pun intended) and Harry has to say. 'I will defend to death your right to say it' as Voltaire says. However, we are censored by the sole fact that everything, without questions, is based on the economy and its 'promise' of progress. (cont.)
Would like to have the time to watch more of these adult cartoons. Heard that The Simpsons threads softly on scientology, a cult South Park likes to pummel.
As Baudelaire said: "The world goes round only by misunderstanding." (and this blog!)
Note to self: Must back away from the computer. Easy now, slowly... :D
"There's a cartoon serial "The Goode Family" it's a parody of the liberal, eco-friendly family. The first episode made me very angry and offended, but thinking about the parts that really annoyed me afterwards I found they were true about me…"
I can certainly relate to that. Speaking of which, my favourite South Park episodes are the ones parodying animal rights activists (I am passionate about animal rights) and atheists (especially the one parodying Dawkins).
"You seem to have a bee in your bonnet in my regard".
Not at all. I just hate misunderstanding people and being misunderstood myself. ;)
How could Fr Joe give up on us? We put him in First and Third place in the Most Commented last year.
In fact he's in First place as I write...
Now back to the grindstone...Exams!
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet in my regard.
Oops this is a one-liner too...I apologise for it and for the bonnet! :D
Pax
I certainly agree about self-regulation and an independent ratings committee. I draw the line on banning ANY form of speech or expression, including religious parody in carnival.
@ Fr Joe Borg: "…and other important rights"
The church often raises its' hands piously saying that nobody has the right to offend. I counter that being offended is important. When I get offended, I end up spending time coming to terms with the offense - and that will invariably end up make me a better person.
There's a cartoon serial "The Goode Family" it's a parody of the liberal, eco-friendly family. The first episode made me very angry and offended, but thinking about the parts that really annoyed me afterwards I found they were true about me…
Intervention only indicated when there is abuse of the performers. Then there are already laws that apply. For example: I am against animal circuses: animals must be maltreated and abused to entertain. I'm not against Cirque du Soleil, based solely on human talent.
When you wrote the "Le jahasra Ken", you were referring to my comment after you wrote "Gee Ken don't assume stuff". Therefore it is quite obvoius that when I said that one-liners don't help and that you should give more information if you want people wondering what you're on about, I was referring to that. I wasn't asking for your opinion on censorship. I was referring to what you thought I was assuming.
Anyway, my email address is kenneth.cassar@gmail.com. So next time, you "might" tick both me and Joe privately, or you "might" tick-off just me. No big deal.
13 hours and 47 comments later, and we are still on the subject of pornography.
We never learn Fr. Joe!!!
Why not give up on us? :-)
I trust that this brings closure to this issue, the execrable filth. There is so much a virtual virgin in his dotage can take. Ah!! men.
As has been repeatedly stated, pornography is just a way of satiating natural curiosity, no more, no less. We do not go around naked. Maybe would should like we used to and where some still do. To some, this imagery keeps the devil (exploitation of women, rape, violence) away. Some misuse it of course. Like anything else, it can be misinterpreted and misused and abused.
continued
That is SO not true!!! You must be joking! See! I never know how to interpret your comments.
If you really want to know why I hardly ever engage with you, it’s because very often I feel intimidated – by your sarcasm, mostly. There! I said it.
And blame yourself if when I do answer I get it all wrong. If anything you’re possibly the intellectual one and that is why I fail to understand you. We’re not on the same wavelength, maybe.
My last comment to you looks a little like mumbo-jumbo but I am sure you get the gist.
I find that in the censorship debate there is no cut and dried solution...While I appreciate the position undertaken by Fr Joe and yourself, I still think that there's a limit to how much the authorities, be they secular or religious, can limit, restrict or even withhold information from adults who are presumed to have critical faculties and are capable of making decisions for themselves. Of course, I am all for protecting minors from material that is considered harmful. I do draw the line at hate speech and racial hatred. I did not put in my two cents' worth until now because I am in the middle of my exams and I sort of wanted to sit this one out...but I could not resist especially when, in my view, it started getting out of hand. But then as I told Ken, my distaste does not necessarily mean that I am right. This is the whole conundrum in the censorship debate. What is taste?
I emphasise normal because it's created by a creator, non?!
Well, I did get a fleeting thought that you might not lean to my way of thinking since you omitted to comment, though later when I re-read your repartee with Kenneth, I thought that perhaps your objection would be more against biting remarks. However I am glad to be reminded of your comment regarding Stitching, which incidentally I had liked so much and which I had thought was so apt.
I gave more info re my censorship position. But then I subscribe to that point of view that one is not obliged to let it all hang out because one is obliged to do so.
Good night to you too.
Religion is indeed infinitely more harmful than 'filthy pictures'. Pornography, IF IT IS TO BE USED AT ALL, if used sensibly by a sensible adult does in fact defuses sexual tension. One would be ill-advised to over-indulge in much the same way one would not eat fry-ups every day. Religion, on the other hand, deprives one of the all-important component in life we call 'verismo' a` la Mascagni or Verga's 'La Lupa'. Be all pious like La Tosca and you're done for, in this life and later. In other words, it deprives one of life, a precious commodity.
You're like a dog worrying a bone. Give me your private details and next time I will 'tick you off privately'. No biggie. Now back to them books because I was skulking around waiting for your reply with trepidation. Joking.
You're like a dog worrying a bone. Give me your private details and next time I will 'tick you off privately'. No biggie. Now back to them books because I was skulking around waiting for your reply with trepidation. Joking.
My last post for today. A little hint prompted by your "Le jahasra Ken" comment. One-liners don't help...try to give more information if you don't want people wondering what you're on about.
Anyway, I'm off now. Good night.
I see. So you (might have - ah, convenient) "ticked off" Joe privately, and you "tick-off" Kenneth publicly for all the world to see. Yes, very fair.
Anyway, let's put this all behind us. Its no big deal.
As for my views about censorship, let me help Jessica out too - I tend to lean more to your side of the argument then to Fr Joe's and Jessica's. Although, as I said once in the blog about Stitching 'Some people's mind is so open that their brains fall out', I am still not comfortable myself with being told what to read, watch and shock, horror what to think by people who might think know better.
Ok. I think I got it!
Your statement is quite enigmatic, however, so I might not have got it at all.
"In a study reported in the Guardian last year, Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University carried out MRI brain scans of men as they looked at pictures of sexy women. She discovered that the areas of the brain that lit up were those which were normally activated when tools were used, while the part of the brain associated with empathy shut down. Her conclusion was that sexy images change the way men perceive women from people to interact with, to objects to act upon."
Now it baffles me (to say the least) as to why would I be expected to feel empathy towards a picture of a sexy woman I don't know!!! Empathy or physical affection is something we feel towards people we know or people we don't in dire situations. I would feel empathy towards my wife and towards a picture of a hungry african small child or a picture of a woman holding her baby. Why one earth would I feel empathy towards a sexy woman I don't know????????
Of course your finding our comments distasteful doesn't mean you're right. Its all a matter of perception, isn't it? What offends me might not offend you, and vice-versa.
And I'm not assuming anything about you. My last comment to Fr Joe Borg (about the cease-fire thing) in no way implicated you. You had nothing to do with it. Or is it something else you have in mind?
Regarding censorship, yes I think you have "blown your cover". Until now, I left you out of that debate precisely because you did not express an opinion.
I think that I have inadvertently shared my views about censorship in an implicit way.
Now that's what I call real science (your link). True science is not making biased and prejudiced claims that are not derived from (and evidenced by) the experiment itself, and tell them as facts.
Ehhhh! That’s not fair Victoria!
We have all been quite open about it. Don’t be a spoil sport!
You have to share them. :-)
Apologies for going on about the porn thing, with my suggesting a cease-fire and all that. I promise that as soon as the other side stops shooting bullets, I will stop dropping bombs ;)
Therefore my finding your (pl.) comments distasteful doesn't mean I am right. That is the crux of the whole problem with censorship.
Is all.
So the "study" showed us that people looking at sexy images see the women in the pictures as objects (that's the only thing one can extrapolate from the experiment). Nothing that we did not already know (that's what I would call money down the drain).
However, how one can conclude that this makes the same "men" (why not women as well?) see all women as objects, is in need of a lot of explanation. I'm waiting for that.
And yet, you never told Fr Joe Borg "Gee, don't hold back, Joe". Double standards at its best (no offense intended).
You asked me why I directed my comment to you...If you scroll down you will discover that you had replied to my "Gee don't hold back Ken" and therefore we carried on with our repartee.
As for being surprised at my finding your (yours and Fr JB's) darts somewhat disrespectful, the old adage holds true: There's no accounting for taste. I believe this is in microcosm of what this week's blog is all about. What is distasteful for me might not be distasteful for you, Fr Joe etc. Though you'd be surprised at my views about censorship if I would feel so inclined to share them.
I hope my interpretation here doesn't get misunderstood… I'm a layman in this so…
her conclusion was very sexist. I'm sorry she didn't do the same test on women as she would have gotten the same result (surprise). When I read the interpretation, Ms Fiske came across as a feminist with a chip on her shoulder but the basic study was excellent work.
To back my assertion I up you with this study:
http://www.livescience.com/health/070412_sex_pics.html [Suitable For Work]
I happen to have an 8month old dog and when she meets people or other dogs she'll do her sniffing and circling routine, and believe me she doesn't watch porn. Our brains are primed for sex and when the brain is stimulated, the proper areas light up in an fMRI. During sex, the primary activity is MANIpulation, (unless you're the type to lay prone and let the partner do all the work) so obviously, the 'tool' section of the brain lights up ready to work.
Adolescence and hormones do the work that nature intended, not 20th century pictures!
Well, Joseph, I had every intention to spend some time browsing and selecting passages which could have supported my cause, but since Kenneth brought me to my senses and made me aware that I had digressed enough, I shall opt out. Maybe when the subject about pornography features prominently in another blog, and I would have had some time to read around the subject, I will oblige.
"it had something to do with the comment addressed to Fr Joe that had to do with wine...so I say that his dig directed at you in the first place wasn't to my liking either...Nevertheless, f he asks me, ...I will gladly oblige....But I do not think that it is necessary since he reads all comments and I am sure he will read this one too".
Interesting. So, you now say that you find both Fr Joe's comment (whom you acknowledge "started it") and mine distasteful, and yet address your comment specifically to me. Now that's what I call "fair".
I still don't see my comment as particularly disrespectful (and neither Fr Joe's, to be fair). They were both sarcastic comments, and a little sarcasm isn't such a big deal.
Was Fr Joe offended? I would hope not. At least, I wasn't slightly offended by his sarcastic comment that I wouldn't know the difference between wine and porn, which in my opinion would be (not that it is, if taken as sarcasm) worse than saying "I'm assuming you only tried wine (and not porn)". And why would Fr Joe be offended for being told he never watched porn?
In a study reported in the Guardian last year, Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University carried out MRI brain scans of men as they looked at pictures of sexy women. She discovered that the areas of the brain that lit up were those which were normally activated when tools were used, while the part of the brain associated with empathy shut down. Her conclusion was that sexy images change the way men perceive women from people to interact with, to objects to act upon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/16/sex-object-photograph
on the contrary! this is not a settled argument by a long shot. You cannot however expect me to defend your point of view as I'm coming from the other side of the debate! I would like to get the quantifiable benefits to society of your side (in the liberal conservative debate).
Looking forward to some good stuff. But if you haven't looked up stuff lately, it can be a bit daunting. I waste time reading what comes along and keep the nuggets that seem to make sense preferably based on original research. If a topic interests me enough I actively research it.
It is not my style to spoon-feed people Ken. But since you insist let me break ranks for a while: it had something to do with the comment addressed to Fr Joe that had to do with wine. Granted, you will retort that he started it....so I say that his dig directed at you in the first place wasn't to my liking either...but then de gustibus non est disputandum....And to censor or not to censor essentially deals with personal tastes. Nevertheless, f he asks me, like you have, what comments by him weren't respectful, I will gladly oblige....But I do not think that it is necessary since he reads all comments and I am sure he will read this one too.
Please "spoon-feed" me, because I still fail to see where I have been disrespectful. Take it as an opportunity to help me become a better person, if you're right and I'm wrong. You might fail, but at least you would have tried ;) Nothing personal...its all in the spirit of debate.
No, it was not entirely your "fault" (actually I think discussing porn is still on topic), but yes, you were the one who first mentioned porn. Check it out for yourself. ;)
But I guess discussing porn was fine until the scales started tipping to one side.
You have never struck me as someone who likes to be spoonfed. The comments you made that struck me a as a little below the belt had nothing to do with religion. I am very confident in my beliefs not to feel offended by your digs at any kind of faith. I welcome them because your comments, more often than not, help me to inspect and examine why I believe what I believe in, regardless. Hbieb konna u mija nibqghu.
Oh! So it’s my fault. I hadn’t realized.!!!
Sorry Fr. Joe! :-)
Regarding part 2 of your post, yes you are ranting, and are flogging a straw-man. I don't know where you got the impression that I consider 16-year-olds to be responsible enough to make good decisions and can take any kind of decision for themselves.
Same goes to your reference to sexism. Pornography need not be sexist, although perhaps much of it is. I would unreservedly condemn the sexist type.
I don't find that Xarabank is a good medium for one to form one's opinion. I'm not at all surprised that someone on Xarabank would suggest that 16 year olds should watch porn - but I'll take your word for it. I have stopped watching it ages ago. I prefer to get my knowledge from good books written by people who know what they're talking about.
Xarabank - I participated as a guest on the panel once (on the topic of animal rights). The experience convinced me not to do it again. A lot of rabble by amateurs - resulting in one becoming more confused than ever before.
Of course, the purpose of Xarabank is to give a voice to EVERYONE. However, when discussing serious and delicate topics, this format does not work.
As for your question, no, I do not consider 16-year-olds to be fully grown adults. Adulthood is a progression. You don't stop being a child one day, and wake up an adult the next day. So while 16-year-olds would be mature enough for some things (a little more freedom and privacy, for instance) they definitely are not mature enough for something like porn.
Can you please point out exactly where I have been "disrespectful"?
Apologies for following Jessica DeBattista's lead and discussing porn. I know the blog is not about porn. Its about censorship. In a way, its still on topic, but if you want to raise a white flag for the time being, I'll agree to a cease-fire.
I have no problem with self-regulation. The private media, for instance, has every right to refuse to show anything they want, and not just porn. And I most certainly would not object to more media education (as long as it is factual). A publisher refusing to publish my story would not be censorship. The state denying me to publish my story - that would be censorship.
I assume few around here know how women view men as sex objects.
It takes two to tango Ms Debattista.
"I already said in the last blog article that I was only avoiding controversy out of respect for the victims of Haiti. So no, here I won't hold back."
Respect for the victims of Haiti? Even though what happened was the effect of their 200 year pact with the DEVIL (which incdentally expired in 1991). This is what Pat Robertson thinks and he is another living proof that religion does not harm people. I'm sure Pat would agree that we should ban pornography though. He talks to God and says that God tells him stuff. He predicted the end of the world would come in 1982, and while this was sort of a feeling shared by England football fans like me, hardly materialized.
Part 2.
I wonder how many of you here, have children of that age. If you do, I must congratulate you for I am sure you must have given them a thorough grounding in critical thinking and can rest assured that they are responsible enough to make good decisions.
At the risk of sounding like I am ranting (not that I care), we are all aware how a lot of men view women as sex objects etc. for we have not been spared some graphical descriptions lately in a pseudo-literary work. I wonder how much this familiarity with pornography is going to improve the lot of us women!
@ Kenneth Cassar: “This is about censorship, not about young teens. It's about adults. Young teens need discipline and guidance.”
Part 1.
If I recall correctly, it has been discussed on Xarabank, that sixteen year olds would be considered as adults and would be given the right to “enjoy” pornography - there are still four years to go before they are out of their teens. But I suppose that makes sense for most of you here. After all they are not “young teens” - sixteen is a very mature age by the standard of most of you here. Right?
OK then! So let us risk them getting addicted!
Continued…..
I'm sure he walks on water when nobody's looking…
My apologies. My comment was aimed at Fr. Joe, who the quotation was cited from. Unfortunately I forgot to put him on the first line and yours was cited in his comment, hence it looked like I directed it at you.
Let's hope someone doesn't tell you that censors put their sanity in peril as a form of self-sacrifice out of saintly altruism. If someone surprises us with such a reply, and if it is true, I would advise parents to keep their children well clear of censors.
You want a hard question? How about you answer my challenge on the Matthew Chapter 10 verses 7-8? For those not so familiar with the Bible and the Gospels this states that Jesus told his disiples that they could heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, RAISE THE DEAD and cast out demons in his name. Avoiding the questions you can't answer does not make you look very convincing. Please prove that Jesus is God and the Gospels are true by raising someone from the dead. You can pick anyone from the many cemeteries that we have. Surely if Jesus (GOD) said it - it must be true.....no?
Well, I suppose we are all ranting. Some rant for - others rant against.
This afternoon, I will try to do some homework in the hope that I’ll find some scientific facts that will support my “rants”. According to you there aren’t any, so I shall probably be wasting my time. But I shall try nevertheless.
Till later!
That I can see...a little more respect from all would be very welcome though. This discussion is degenerating into a free-for-all -no- holds- barred- mudslinging -fest. I am aware that the topic is about censoring but a little reflection on how best to put our thoughts to print before pressing 'Submit' would be beneficial. I have always felt that Fr Joe's blog, barring some sporadic exceptions, is a community of healthy discussion. Since you have brought up last week's blog, may I respectfully remind you of what you have also said: "There is good in everyone of us, and while there is nothing wrong with passionate debate, it is good to remember that." It is about time that we all do, with no exceptions.
If you say pornography CAN be harmful to some people - then I agree. If on the other hand you say pornography IS harmful (implying that nobody can watch it without being harmed) then it would make the authorities both STUPID and CRUEL to subject the censor board to deliberate harm.
I hope that by now everyone understands the difference. Nobody is justified in banning something because it can be harmful, but one would be justified in banning something that IS unquestionably harmful. The examples and comparisons I have made previously strengthen my argument. Many people have been harmed by religion (see terrorism, crusades, Jim Jones, inquisition, witch hunts etc etc) but many others have not been harmed. When something can be harmful the state places a warning or classifies it so that people who are most likely to be harmed are protected. It does not however act accordingly with Religion which gets a free ride even when (in certain groups) it teaches hate.
Now I prefer to discuss the core of the subject of the blog. The blog is not about porn. The word is not even mentioned in what I wrote.
I was discussing censorship and possible alternatives to censorship. Censorship (and I here referred only to the formal kind of censorship) is not just about pornography.
I suggested that we need more self regulation and co-regulation initiatives and more media education. These tools can help us establish a better balance between the freedom of expression and other important rights. This balance is proposed by several international documents on human rights. I wrote - following Hamelink - that besides freedom we should look at quality and responsibility when we discuss media products.
I almost always make an appeal to return to the core of the subject while others fly at a tangent. I will tackle the tangent of porn; but to-day let us discuss more what the blog is all about.
I think you got me wrong - I'm not in favour of censorship and my argument was that if you were justified in censoring something on the basis that it was harmful to some, then you could ban almost anything on this world - from football to food etc etc.
@ Fr. Joe Borg
"For a number of years I was the Chairman of the Diocesan Film Commission. It was a period when the Maltese state through its state broadcasting system used to import rubbish films including a number which in my opinion and that of others were pornogaphic. I saw enough to be disgusted. Besides, I made a campaign to get Maltese newspapers to stop advertising a cinema in Valletta which showed porn films."
So you're basically saying that you had to watch some porn and yet you were not harmed (apart from disgust) which basically proves our point. You see when something is by definition harmful, it is not tested on humans (like poison for example).
@ jessica, can we refrain from useless rants pls? we know your personal opinion and still respect you nonetheless.
If you want to even try to persuade us that you're right you have to build your arguments on fact, on testable hypothesis. It's a simple dictate that has improved the human lot since the enlightenment.
You and Fr Joe have only resorted to grandiloquence with little substance… and it's very annoying. Were are your facts? what are your arguments based on? that's what I want to know, otherwise you're just a celebrity squawk box.
We're past the superstitious dark ages Fr Joe, we're not easily impressed with talk of eternal doom and gloom or pseudo legalistic mumbo-jumbo to funnel our behavior into your little mouse trap.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's discuss facts and their interpretation, not dogmas and prejudice please.
Restricting personal liberties is not to be taken lightly.
This is about censorship, not about young teens. It's about adults. Young teens need discipline and guidance.
But let's not off-track the discussion. Perhaps teens could be the topic of another article. I'll only say that to imply that a "relaxed attitude" towards porn is a bad thing, you would need to establish that any porn to anyone at any dose is necessarily a bad thing. You haven't yet done so convincingly.
And no, just to be clear, underage teens should not be allowed to watch porn, just as they should not be allowed to watch movies of extreme violence. But that's another topic.
"Gee Ken, don't hold back".
I already said in the last blog article that I was only avoiding controversy out of respect for the victims of Haiti. So no, here I won't hold back.
"Any other easy questions, Ken? I take even funny ones if you prefer the latter".
I would prefer that you answer the harder ones. I've already given plenty to choose from.
"You wrote that porn is less harmful than religion. So porn, in your opinion is harmful, but less so than religion. We are agreeing on one thing at least: porn is harmful".
You're good at picking on the easy ones, aren't you. However, I will admit that your easy reply comes from the fact that I made a minor error (that unfortunately makes a lot of difference) in my post.
What I should have written is that porn, like religion, is potentially harmful, and religion can be more harmful than porn. Now here's a direct question (and please answer this). Do you agree that religion can be harmful? If you answer yes, then we would be agreeing that both porn and religion CAN BE harmful.
An honest reply please.
Regarding my "difference between wine and porn" joke, I did say it was a joke, just as much in bad taste as yours was. I'm sure you don't honestly think I don't know the difference between wine and porn! So your explanation was unnecessary. It is surprising, however, how you have not become a sex addict after watching so much porn. Perhaps porn is not so inherently harmful after all?
I'm glad you don't think the precautionary principle necessarily implies banning. Now, to apply the knives analogy to pornography, I would agree that their use should be restricted in certain situations. For instance, I would not reccommend that porn be shown on planes. I also would recommend that they are kept on the top shelves in shops and strictly sold only to adults. I would also recommend that whoever chooses to watch them, watches them at home and makes sure there are no children around. I would also not recommend that they be shown in mental institutions.
I do agree that just as we are to care for the physical environment, we should also care for the cultural one (although this is tricky - culture cannot be imposed). I only disagree that censorship should be used citing the precautionary principle.
Interchanging "has negative effect" to "can have negative effect" has a very deceiving effect. The argument that something "can" have negative effect is not a base for banning, which is why the precautionary principle fails for censorship. It has been tried, it has been tested and it has failed. The Chinese authorities, as an example, have put it in practice in terms of religion - the analogy Kenneth is making - and I doubt you would promote such an ideology. Why would you promote it in terms of censorship?
Part 2.
So “everybody” is converging to the spot where the parents are ousted from, for the kids wouldn’t be seen dead accompanied by the old ones. In the meantime they are left to their own devices, their hormones running riot, egged on by a glass of cheap wine and the occasional joint.
Now all they need is a relaxed attitude towards pornography and the peer pressure will snowball and in no time “everybody” will be doing it for they have to move with the times. So now they converge to the spot their minds already stimulated by erotic images, cheap wine at hand and the occasional joint, and we have a recipe for….. DISASTER
Amazing how Malta has “advanced” since …..! SO SAD!!!!
Part 1.
So how do we exert some form of control and not let them get themselves in a mess, thereby, putting pressure on their families as well as the State?
Peer pressure has always been a powerful tool and it is not only the young who are slaves to it but even the parents. How else has society been allowed to degenerate if not by peer pressure among parents – parents losing control over their kids and bowing to the dictates of the time - that it is a different world and that they have to move with the times? In the meantime relaxing their hold and giving in to the kids’ demand because “everybody is doing that”.
Continued…
Very easy to answer Ken. For a number of years I was the Chairman of the Diocesan Film Commission. It was a period when the Maltese state through its state broadcasting system used to import rubbish films including a number which in my opinion and that of others were pornogaphic. I saw enough to be disgusted. Besides, I made a campaign to get Maltese newspapers to stop advertising a cinema in Valletta which showed porn films. I had to see a number to be able to persuade editors and publishers not to advertise such filth. Any other easy questions, Ken? I take even funny ones if you prefer the latter.
Mgr Grech's analogy - especially when interpreted in the light of what Hamelink says - is a bit more apt, however because he didn't speak about knives or wine but compared the physical environment to the cultural one. People form part of society and live within a cultural as well as a physical context .
The reasoning is that, just as we are supposed to care for the physical environment, we should also look after our cultural one, perhaps even using the same tools (e.g. the precautionary principle). We have responsibilities to look after both environments and, shirking our duties where culture is concerned would be akin to renouncing to protect the physical, natural environment and would carry similar consequences, such as the deterioration of that environment.
Yes Joe, there’s a lot of truth in what you say. I wonder how I would have looked as a nun!
I did toy with the idea once, y’know. :-)
But, “deprived of identity other than what comes out of a tiny pot,”????
I don’t think it takes a tiny pot to give me identity.
"Would that make pornography less harmful to people?"
I would say, definitely yes, less harmful than religion.
This, Fr. Joe Borg, is exploitation. It's all around us. Women of all ages being persuaded that rosy cheeks is where it's at. The women have no idea of themselves. Deprived of identity other than what comes out of a tiny pot, they are, well, exploited. Let's shut down the industry and invest in soap and facecloth instead.
"Kenneth Cassar. If you do not make a difference between pornography and wine then I suggest you stick to wine".
By the way, how do you know the difference? I'm assuming you only tried wine. Sorry, but since you're trying to be funny, I decided to follow suit.
"Let us for the sake of the argument agree that religion has negative effects on people".
Yes, let us "for the sake of argument" say that two aeroplanes crashed into the twin-towers.
"Would that make pornography less harmful to people?"
I would say, definitely yes.
"Would two wrongs make a right?"
Of course not, but in the first instance, you have to establish the wrong. You haven't, and I'm not saying that religion necessarily is harmful (it is only harmful to some). Secondly, if both would be wrong and you would seek to abolish one for that, you must seek to abolish the other for the same reason, unless you're a hypocrite. I say, let's not abolish either. I am no hypocrite.
"If you do not make a difference between pornography and wine then I suggest you stick to wine".
If you cannot deduce that wine was my analogy to show you that something taken in moderation is harmless but taken in excess is very harmful (just like pornography), then I suggest you forget about critical thinking and stick to blind faith.
Pornography. When the glass is half full, pornography can be a release (of sorts). No sin, no abuse, no exploitation. When the glass is half empty, an addict will act out. An addict will also be aroused by the orgiastic ensembles in 'Spartacus'. Very erotic to those so inclined, with or without Khachaturian's frenzied music. Not to mentioned the repeated slow-motion contortions and flailing limbs, both upper and lower, in a myriad pas de deux. Anything can be eroticised and sexualised. Even a madonna with a decollete not exactly marylike. The Victorians notoriously covered piano-legs as too provocative to the fevered male ego which is a good thirty inches further south than where it should be.
So, according to some, all imagery should be banned as too soirees around the piano as they can generate lascivious thoughts among the uneducated who are aroused by navel oranges. Ban the heinous citrus.. No more swans at the Manoel and a hundred altar pieces onto the bonfire of the ex-vanities on Walpurgis Night.
cont./
For the sake of the argument you say!!! Nice cop out.
How about I agree, for the sake of the argument that pornography has negative effects on people? Would that make religion less harmful to people? Would two wrongs make a right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't bring yourself to admit that I am right and at the same time have no argument to prove I'm wrong. If you secretly (as implied in the "for the sake of the argument" apology) believe that religion is not at all harmful to anyone then you are more deluded than I initially thought.
If "a male student of a certain age” is a young lad to you, then I am a teenager. Thank you :-)
So religion demonstrably can have negative effects (unless one is a sado-masochist, and so would disagree). Should we ban religion citing the precautionary principle?
"@ several. Jessica DeBattatisa is right. There are myriad studies, academic papers and books by authoritative authors proving beyond doubt that pornography can and does have negative effects. Those who say otherwise are burying their heads in the sand. Besides, there is also a lot of exploitation in the pornography industry."
Well I am RIGHT too. There are even more studies, papers and books by rational authors proving beyond doubt that religion can and does have negative effects. Those who say otherwise are burying their heads in the sand. Besides there is also a lot of exploitation in the religion industry.
"Jessica DeBattatisa is right. There are myriad studies, academic papers and books by authoritative authors proving beyond doubt that pornography can and does have negative effects".
Nobody is disputing that pornography can have negative effects. So do wine and knives.
"Besides, there is also a lot of exploitation in the pornography industry".
True. One can condone or tolerate something while unreservedly condemning the business practices behind it. The clothing industry is generally harmless, but in Sweatshops there is a lot of exploitation.
"there are myriad studies, academic papers and books by authoritative authors"
so it should be easy to give us references…
"proving beyond doubt that pornography can and does have negative effects. "
In philosophy you can "prove" anything, in science it's a bit harder. Unless the APA or similar comes out with guidelines saying that pornography is harmful, then it's simply your opinion or prejudice.
"does have negative effects"
quantify. Even the Pope JPII has admitted that the catholic hate had some negative effects. I don't advocate banning it though…
"Those who say otherwise are burying their heads in the sand"
meh
Besides, there is also a lot of exploitation in the pornography industry
Exploitation is illegal and there are laws against it. use those. The affordable clothes you're wearing, the expensive gadgets you're using are all produced by exploitation of the poor in Haiti, Vietnam, China, Algeria, Tunisia etc… I don't see you loosing sleep over it or even missing your chocolate once in a while…
Exploitation exists were there are indigent and disenfranchised people. Fight for their rights and exploitation fades away.
What a load of nothing! If it is well known, then you could have given us some references.
"have an impact" can you define impact? that's little more than hand-waving to illustrate your point.
"You have to apply it wherever you believe there is danger of irreparable damage…"
and who's going to decide? you? the pope? let's dress somebody up in the emperor's new clothes, throne him and let him arbiter our petty lives… as long as there's someone doing the deciding for us we're comfy and safe. The precautionary principle is applied only when the science indicates that harm is real and tangible. You don't use it because the emperor and his sect have a particular prejudice.
The 'media' is nothing new, emperors and kings have been honing propaganda and misinformation to an art form for the last 5000 years at least. State religions transformed it into a science! technology made it easier.
"If you accept this (precautionary) principle, you accept it. You have to apply it wherever you believe there is danger of irreparable damage for, like any other principle, you cannot switch it on and off according to personal preferences or convenience".
Fine. Knives cause irreparable damage. They kill. What do you propose we do about that? Ban knives? Do a psychological evaluation before selling someone knives?
The article is from 2004, if you recall it's Georgy Bush was in power, promoting all the crazy far right fundamentalists' agendas against the advice of experts.
- he ignored the military on invading Iraq and went with the neo-cons,
- he ignored the biologists, geologists etc… and promoted intelligent design in schools
- he ignored the experts and went for abstinence only programmes
- he ignored the experts and obstructed policies that mitigate global worming
…
Mr Satinover has an impressive curriculum but he's going against the set guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association which were voted 125-4:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09080608.html
These people are making a lot of money selling snake-oil remedies and in the end doing a lot of harm. They just bungled it in Uganda where they promoted their looney ideas on homosexuality with the result that homosexuality now carries a risk of capital punishment.
Tell people not to exercise their sexuality 'because it is a sin' and you're well and truly done for. Strong forces cannot be so easily dismissed without unleashing human catastrophe. As catastrophic, paradoxically, as unbridled sexuality.
Our drives musn't be allowed to rule us. We need insights to fight our demons. And from then on, we are free and we live. And a young lad with a few sketches in hand will not threaten us.
Alda Merini, an Italian poetess of immense stature. She died in Milan some weeks ago. Her fevered output lives, is set to music and performed. Maybe not for the squeamish but the squeamish need to beef themselves up, need to be allowed to beef themselves up, if they are to survive as all-rounded human beings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yp5W8DZgBE
Sex is pleasure (incentive to do it to procreate - Nature's remit. Nothing Motherly about nature remember).
People extract the responsibility of sexual union and practise the pleasure. Pleasure - gambling, alcohol, abusive relationships - can be addictive. Pornography can, to some, be addictive. So far, so clear.
Attach sinfulness and prohibition to sexual activity and 'you have set yourself up to fail - abysmally'. Sex is a perfectly natural, indeed absolutely necessary, human expression/activity. Because is has such a strong pleasure component - it has to for the species to survive, it is used and abused among us sad humans. It is used as currency to get, maintain, manipulate relationships, it becomes manipulative, destructive, with the uncautious, it becomes, as it is with 'unconscious' animals, disease ridden. A whole neurotic trip so destructive of humans. There is more evil there than even I can handle. But with the all-crucial knowledge they can all be managed and harnessed to our advantage. Our drives must not be allowed to rule us. We need insights to fight our demons.
cont./
......Cont/
Jesus (who you claim is God) told you that if you had faith you would be able to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers and RAISE THE DEAD, cast demons (Matthew Chapter 10 verses 7-8).
So if anyone of the 2 billion christians had an ounce of REAL faith they would be able to RAISE THE DEAD like the disciples supposedly did and like this idiot claims to do http://www.xpmedia.com/XSc2ha4vcMQc Check this out and smile or weep. If you fail to raise the dead, it means that either you do not have faith or that the Gospel is a lie. So prove your faith and save my immaginary soul.
"Mary Anne Layden, co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Therapy, called porn the "most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today."
Excuse me Dr Mary Anne Layden but you're not really looking hard enough and like all other humans you can spot something wrong in others and not see the obvious wrong that's in you. The exact same thing that her article says can be said about religion but obviously since she sees nothing wrong in faith based thinking instead of evidence based reason, she fails to spot her own weakness. I'm no psychic and I have no supernatural powers but I'd bet my life (this real one that I have and not the fantasy afterlife) that she is not an atheist which makes her research biased and flawed. And before you believers start to attack me I have a challenge for you that will prove if you really do have faith. ......Cont/
If you accept this principle, you accept it. You have to apply it wherever you believe there is danger of irreparable damage for, like any other principle, you cannot switch it on and off according to personal preferences or convenience.
Mgr Grech was right to invoke this principle in the case of the media: it’s well-known and scientifically proven that media have an impact on the way people think and behave. It’s naive to claim otherwise and by definition an impact cannot be neutral but has to be beneficial or harmful.
We must not think only in terms of violence, nudity or mainstream pornography. Racists who publish their incitements and paedophiles who like to ogle children’s photos are among those who love certain arguments often brought forward in the name of absolute freedom of speech.
This does not mean that we should necessarily have an oppressive censorship regime but it's dangerously silly to expect society to forego all forms of control.
Their intolerant agenda is causing real harm, just like the catholic churches active opposition to contraceptives in 3rd world countries to poor families with too many mouths to feed.
The symptoms in the paragraph you quoted should should be laid squarely at the feet of intolerant hate mongers who promote guilt and ostracize those who don't fit their particular cookie cutter.
Same thing is happening today with the obese. Society is becoming intolerant of fat people and they are developing psychological issues. It's not that food is intrinsically harmful but simply that organizations like the church like pointing fingers at who's different and blame them for Job's ills.
I read a lot of news from the USA, this type of guy who flaunts the consensus of his peers and uses his reputation to promote the values of the christian far right. I'm sorry but I lump him with the young earth scientists.
That was the time when Georgy was ignoring military experts about Invading Iraq, ignoring experts on sex education, the US saw a resurgence of crazy fundies promoting intelligent design (they were going to drag the pope into it, unfortunately he had the good fortune to decline the archbishop's invite). These are the same people behind the Uganda Law promoting capital punishment for homosexuals
from the article: "Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and advisor to the NART… echoed Layden's concern about the internet and the somatic effects of pornography"
I urge you to read this about how far these unscrupulous people go to peddle their discredited hate-filled agenda:
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/11/25/the-family-c-street-group-tied-to-uganda-death-penalty-for-gays/
If you fancy you could also read about C Street:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Street
By the way, http://www.narth.com/index.html or "The Association for Curing Homosexuality."
Queen questioned the validity of the panel for not including anyone who thinks "pornography is not particularly problematic in most people's lives."
Queen acknowledges she can name people who have compulsive and destructive behavior centered on pornography, but argues that can happen with other activities, such as gambling and shopping.
Queen also criticized the methodology behind research showing that pornography stimulates the brain like drugs do, saying the research needs to take into account how sex itself stimulates the brain.
"There's no doubt the brain lights up when sexually aroused," Queen said.
Queen too would like to see more money devoted to research on sex, but thinks it is unlikely that researchers on either side of the divide are likely to receive large grants any time soon.
Studies intended to show the harmful effects of pornography must contend with ethical rules prohibiting harm to human subjects, while sex researchers have a hard time getting any funding, unless their study is specifically HIV-related, according to Queen."
Unfortunately you won't get much researched information from that Wired article. It's just a report commissioned by a Senate chaired and vice-chaired by Conservatives (no surprise).
I would seek information from established peer-reviewed Scientific Journals or books.
That said, I do not deny the possibility that porn, like wine, can be addictive. Should we ban both?
No, I do not think you're a prude. From your real-life story, I make the following conclusions:
1. It seems very likely that the "student" was using the art lesson as an excuse. He obviously had ulterior motives which you recognised immediately.
2. Pornographic or not, you had every right to refuse looking at the pictures.
3. Since he kept insisting and harassing you (yes, that's sexual harassment), you had every right to send him away, and even report him to the police. Actually, especially if you had witnesses, that is what you should have done.
4. The situation was certainly negative, but the negativity was not due to pornography (which is neutral unless involving children or unwilling adults), but due to his sexual harassment (which is illegal and unquestioningly immoral by any standard). With or without porn, you'll always have people who sexually harass other people. And again, you don't ban knives just because some use them to kill people.
“…well researched, expert opinion….”: I have been doing some homework, not well researched enough, mind you, but will do…. - “ Internet pornography is the new crack cocaine, leading to addiction, misogyny, pedophilia, boob jobs and erectile dysfunction, according to clinicians and researchers testifying before a Senate committee Thursday.
Witnesses before the Senate Commerce Committee's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee spared no superlative in their description of the negative effects of pornography.
Mary Anne Layden, co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Therapy, called porn the "most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today." Read more http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/11/65772
Some years ago I used to give private lessons in art. Once, a male student of a certain age, came early for the lesson and since we were alone, he proceeded to bring out some pornographic print-outs which he said he wanted to draw. He kept insisting that I look at them and it made me feel extremely uncomfortable - to be sure I felt threatened. They weren’t heavy stuff but, nonetheless, they were pornography. I told him in no uncertain terms what I thought of him and his pictures, but he did not seem perturbed for he stayed for the rest of the lesson. Thankfully he stopped coming to the lessons but I dreaded him showing up again.
Now, lest you think I am a prude, I will have you know that I am used to painting nudes from life, (male and female) but in this situation it was quite obvious that the person had ulterior motives – it was no less than sexual harassment.
Now that situation might not have been negative for him, but it certainly was for me.
Science is annoying because it is rigorous to a fault. Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers either and hypotheticals are only used for discussion and exploration. In the event of an agreement between hypothesis, mathematical model and real world experiments, then science nails it down to a theory.
Another one from Socrates: There is only one good: knowledge and one evil: ignorance
That's a good start if you are saying it with humility. To quote Socrates "The more I learn the less I know".
The point is that hunches, rules of thumb, old lore, common sense etc do not cut it when you need to regulate an open society that tries to be fair and treat person's right to their space.
"I do not know what to think any more! It seems that I had it all wrong all the time judging by how convincingly you portray the benefit of pornography".
You're misrepresenting Joseph A Borg (presumably not deliberately). The statistics he mentions do not portray the benefit of pornography, but the harm from making sexuality taboo. The tale of the forbidden fruit (from the Bible) has something to say in this regard.
"Just as uplifting media can benefit us, pornographic images can negatively affect us".
How so? I mean, negatively. There is no doubt that pornography effects us, just like music or art does. But negatively? I can understand that too much of a good thing is a bad thing (like wine, for instance), but that's as far as it goes. Of course, some people are more prone to alcoholism, but shall we ban alcohol as well? As you see, prohibitionism leads from one thing to another, and stops nowhere.
"Images are not always neutral. They can persuade us".
This is true of commercials and political/religious images. But pornography? Persuade us to do what?
So censorship should exist for the "well being of the ignorant people"? Reasonable man like Kenneth here and I'm sure many others will get deprived on the altar of your morality.
I trust freedom only when it's in my hands. Millions, throughout history, have died to teach us that lesson and yet you still argue out of fear to impose ignorance over enlightenment.
"Kenneth you seem to be a very level-headed person but can you vouch for all the others exposed to such graphic images?".
Ok, let me give you one last example. It is a fact that many people have (in the distant and not too distant past) used the Bible and the Koran as a pretext to commit terrible violence and murder. However, I wouldn't even suggest that the Bible and the Koran should be banned.
By the way, regarding when I said that “some people (who) would see them (gory movies) as a glorification of violence, cruelty and sadism", I was referring to people who would not watch them for that very reason. So in this case, the movies wouldn't effect them in any way.
However, I do acknowledge that some people (an insignificant minority) might seek to watch them precisely because they are themselves violent and so love to watch violence. But in this case, they would not be violent because they watch the movies, but watch the movies because they love violence.
Can I vouch for all others exposed to graphic images? Of course not.
However, the precautionary principle rests on the principle of probability. If it were factually demonstrated that a significant number of people become sadists after watching prolonged scenes of gore, then I would agree that something would need to be done. Perhaps, in this hypothetical scenario, short of banning these kinds of movies, viewing would only be granted after a psychological evaluation of each prospective viewer. But of course, this is only a worst-case-solution to an improbable (impossible, I would say) situation.
As things are, there is not a single documented and proven case that watching gory movies made anyone violent. The general viewer reaction is either that of revulsion, or enjoyment in the knowledge that it is only fiction. (I happen to be somewhere in between).
Of course, you will always find mentally (and violently so) unstable people who will be a danger to society. That's a risk we would have to take. You don't ban knives just because killers use them. You only keep knives away from people whom you know are killers.
For the sake of clarity and preventing misinterpretation, it was a chicken finger not a wing, but this review provides a much better description of this documentary.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/movies/18kids.html
Part 2.
Images are not always neutral. They can persuade us. Businesses know that if they can get a persuasive image of their product in front of you during a highly emotional moment, it will sink into your subconscious mind. The advertising scientists are so good at what they do, they can predict just how much more of their product you will buy if you see their ad. Sometimes, viewers don't even see the name of the product. Reeses Pieces paid a huge price just to have their candy shown for a few seconds in the movie "ET," and sales of Reeses Pieces skyrocketed. Why? Because the emotions connected with watching that small boy reaching out to the alien were transferred to the visual image of the candy. If a split second view of a product -- even when it's not the center of attention -- can affect people's behavior, imagine the effect of a movie that keeps your attention glued to the screen for an hour and a half with sexually explicit images.” http://www.everystudent.com/wires/toxic.html
@ Kenneth and Joseph A Borg:
"It is hard enough to sustain a sound morality, let alone if we are constantly exposed to loose morality in the mistaken idea that such exposure could never effect us in a negative way". (my quote)
“Thanks to the internet and statistics it seems that the places that tolerate pornography have seen a decline in rape and sexual harassment.” (Joseph A Borg)
I do not know what to think any more! It seems that I had it all wrong all the time judging by how convincingly you portray the benefit of pornography.
However, have a look at the following. There is a pro and con to everything:
Effects of Pornography: The Power of Images
“We might think that the things we see and hear don't affect us. Yet we all admit that good music, good movies and good books add a lot to our lives. They can relax us, educate us, move us or inspire us. Just as uplifting media can benefit us, pornographic images can negatively affect us.
Continued….
And another thing that was pointed out in this documentary is the common denominator that some of the young perpetrators of school shootouts were all prescribed medication.
This is delicate ground we tread, but hysteria surely isn't the best solution.
"couldn’t it be flaring up latent feelings which might possibly result in the compulsion to act them out?"
This question can be ultimately interpreted as instilling fear and mistrust in the adult individual and society as a whole. The same two weapons that fuelled the rise of McCarthyism.
Can I suggest viewing the documentary 'The War on Kids' ? Because it makes some valid poitns about the Zero Tolerance policy adopted in American elementary schools. Just because this kid played with a chicken wing by turning it - in his imagination - into a gun, he got suspended from school. That is taking precaution into unnecessary lengths that smell of hysteria. cont...
That's speculation from a willfully ignorant perspective trying to persuade solely on the basis of fear. More people die and get injured by cars and drivers, yet we're not banning cars from the streets are we? But I guess adding the flavor of fear to a statistical death makes your argument more persuasive.
Thank goodness I have learnt something called critical thinking.
Kenneth you seem to be a very level-headed person but can you vouch for all the others exposed to such graphic images? - No you cannot for you yourself assert that there are “some people who would see them as a glorification of violence, cruelty and sadism.” For the latter, couldn’t it be flaring up latent feelings which might possibly result in the compulsion to act them out?
I hope you read this before replying, because I believe this requires further clarification.
I wrote: "Of course, there are types of pornography that do debase (women, for instance, portraying them as the property of men...)"
I'm afraid this might trigger the response: "See? The Realta story debases women as it portrays them as the property of men". However, this is not so.
Let me give an analogy. Take movies about serial killers (or "worse", the Saw series). Some people (an insignificant minority, I would hope), would see them as a glorification of violence, cruelty and sadism. However, my reaction to such movies (not my favourite genre, to be clear), would be that of repulsion. Therefore, the movie, far from glorifying cruelty, would have created (or heightened) in me a sense of repulsion towards cruelty.
There always remains the question of how graphic (in violence or sex) a movie/article/book should be, but that is the prerogative of the artist's freedom of expression, and is subjective to the opinion of the viewer/reader.
I hope this clarifies things.
Clearly the precautionary principle does not apply here. Not only is it not proven that such material actually harms anyone, but exactly which material - if any - does is purely a matter of subjective opinion.
Second point: Malta currently DOES have censorship of newspapers and TV. The word also applies to acts taken afterwards to suppress a publication that has already been printed.
Glad we agree on classification. However I don't agree that classification is censorship. Censorship means that viewing is prohibited to anyone but the censor. Classification is not so. A child may read/watch the book/play/movie when he/she grows up. With censorship, he/she never would.
Regarding the politics part, no, I'm not agreeing with you. When I said that the public has been "bred" on blue or red, perhaps I should have made it clearer (though clear enough I think it was) that I meant the older generations. The younger (adult) generation, I believe, is largely beyond that. This agrees with my claim that largely, the Maltese population is in a position to judge critically. And things will improve unless we actively prohibit the tools for critical thinking through censorship, for how can one think critically when one is presented with only one world-view?
I need not have surprised you. I do not consider nudity in art to be pornography. Didn't I say "by some people's standards"? If it were my opinion, I would have written "by my standards". The point is: Who decides? What is art, and what is pornography? And can pornography itself be art? The viewer/listener/reader decides. Critical thinking, Jessica, critical thinking.
"Pornography can never be condoned for it debases us as human beings. It divests us from our self esteem (dignity)".
That's a very subjective value judgement. You need to provide your reasons why you believe all pornography debases human beings (as well as clearly define what you class as pornography). Sex is natural. Why would portraying it in pictures, film or books "dabase us"?
Of course, there are types of pornography that do debase (women, for instance, portraying them as the property of men), but that does not necessarily make all pornography so. What is so shameful about consensual adult sex?
"I do not have to be graphical about what constitutes work referred to as pornographic. It seems that many commentators on this blog are very much familiar with it, to the extent that they have become immune to its effect".
I cannot say this with any certainty considering that you won't specify, however, perhaps, it is not that commentators have become immune (that would require repeated viewing/reading for a long stretch). Could it not be that what you have in mind is no big deal after all, or is not even pornography?
If you want to live on a celery stick and a bit of water to expiate original sin to be received in heaven; if you don't like eating pork or drink wine because allah commanded; if you fancy clearing your path from insects so as not to harm them or do not eat meat at all, it's your choice and I respect it.
Fr Joe and Mgr Grech however aim to influence public policy through debate and we are arguing that, nothing personal. Public policy shouldn't be guided by some brand of morals, feelings and prejudice. It should be guided by well researched, expert opinion, steering clear of mistakes from the past.
I prefer to fly in an airplane piloted by a rational, calm pilot with very good knowledge of the flight dynamics, like the celebrated Hudson River pilot instead of some feely-weely, superstitious pilot who praises god's guiding hand to mask his incompetence.
Part 3.
“Of course, it's an undisputed fact that the young have to be protected at all cost. Hence classification. That should be enough.” - It seems that we are finally going to agree on something here: I tend to agree that classification (which is, in itself, a form of censorship) should be enough.
“The Maltese general public has not been "bred" on politics. They have been "bred" on blue or red. Knowing politics requires much more than that.” – Ok! So now you are coming to my way of thinking when, in an earlier comment, I said, “…. we have to acknowledge that the general public is, in fact, not in a position to judge critically.” I do not see why I had to raise such a hornet’s nest when I said that, when in reality you seem to agree with me.
@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 2.
“It would also be good to remember that by some people's standards, the Vatican is full of pornography (nudity in art). So while you believe you have the right to dismiss as amateurs people who see as art what you describe as pornography, it would do you good to keep that in mind.” - Kenneth, you surprise me at times! I would not have expected you to refer to “nudity in art” as pornography.
Nudity is a noble art form, for the human body, when depicted tastefully, is celebrating the beauty of God’s most wonderful creation. It is only when man, driven by base impulses or when forced to produce work for lascivious patrons, creates images with the sole aim to sexually arouse the viewer that images become pornographic. Such images can also be artistic but usually they are produced for the private delectation of the patron and his ilk and certainly not the type of art that is displayed in the Vatican.
Continued…
Part 1.
Pornography can never be condoned for it debases us as human beings. It divests us from our self esteem (dignity). I do not have to be graphical about what constitutes work referred to as pornographic. It seems that many commentators on this blog are very much familiar with it, to the extent that they have become immune to its effect. And that is the problem! If we become immune to certain lascivious behaviour there is no limit to what we can resort to if we let our animal (with due respect to animals) instinct run riot.
Continued….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8473285.stm
From the captions: "The general prosecutor's office in the capital, Tashkent, set up a special commission to analyse the photographs. The commission concluded that the pictures distort reality."
that's what you feel and think. Now we have a great metric, based on facts. Thanks to the internet and statistics it seems that the places that tolerate pornography have seen a decline in rape and sexual harassment.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1447191/online_pornography_helping_lower_rape.html?cat=5
The connection is clear: repressing biological urges creates bigger problems in the mind. To paraphrase Stephen Fry: The church's obsession with sex is shockingly similar to the relationship bulimics and the morbidly obese have with food.
Society has become morbidly moral, to the extent that deviances are repressed, this simply leads to psychosis, dysfunction and explosive reactions that harm the individual and others who happen to be around. I blame this mostly on the bible puritans north of Italy and their perverse intolerance of the pleasures of life.
Why did they influence the catholic church so much?
"It is hard enough to sustain a sound morality, let alone if we are constantly exposed to loose morality in the mistaken idea that such exposure could never effect us in a negative way".
I nearly missed this. I have to disagree. For people such as I, self-trained in critical thinking by my habitual reading of books (some of which an overzealous censors would deny me), it is not hard at all to sustain a sound morality. I can in fact watch a porn movie without raping anyone. I can watch an extremely violent movie without killing someone. I can watch a robbery movie without stealing. I can read the Old Testament without doing any of those things.
To know "loose morality" is to be equipped with the tools to combat it. To keep "loose morality" firmly hidden from the public eye is to make it easier for them to succumb if they happen to meet it by chance.
"for the Maltese general public has been “bred” on politics and consequently, very much capable of critical thinking when it comes to electing politicians".
The Maltese general public has not been "bred" on politics. They have been "bred" on blue or red. Knowing politics requires much more than that. Politicians are not just financial administrators. They legislate on "morals" and "social justice".
To elect good politicians (and not in a random lottery-like way), one would need to use critical thinking on morals and social justice. To know critical thinking is to be able to apply it to everything. Not to know critical thinking is to be unable to apply it to anything.
I'm very optimistic. I believe that the Maltese people are slowly but surely becoming critical thinkers, even though most do not outwardly show it but keep their thoughts to themselves.
Ah, so now we move the goalpost, from critical thinking to dignity. Such a convenient word which could mean almost anything. A fundamentalist muslim would tell you that dignity is to kill the infidel. Let's stick to critical thinking and reason, shall we?
Regarding "pornography", you say it can never be condoned without even offering one argument for your broad-brush claim. That's not critical thinking at all.
It would also be good to remember that by some people's standards, the Vatican is full of pornography (nudity in art). So while you believe you have the right to dismiss as amateurs people who see as art what you describe as pornography, it would do you good to keep that in mind. A true artist is not that arrogant to dictate him/herself what is art. It is the viewer/listener who decides.
Of course, it's an undisputed fact that the young have to be protected at all cost. Hence classification. That should be enough. But stop using children as an excuse to dictate what I (a 40-year-old) may or may not watch or listen to).
Finally, people who are not critical thinkers on morals, are not critical thinkers on anything.
It seems like the catholic church is a greater unbeliever than me, myself and I…
The church should stop apologizing for past mistakes (a rarity instituted by Pope JPII) and start fighting for the poor (materially and emotionally ) by respecting them in their choices (I'm not implying that the church should accept amoral behavior).
The church should protect the outcasts, not exacerbate their plight and point at their differences.
To paraphrase Seracino in his last column, perhaps the church should stop thinking in terms of empire and start working as a commonwealth with other churches (and I add, society in general).
That would require a hefty change in the mental attitude of church hierarchy though: they are still enamored of their Holy Roman Empire, when their remit is strictly that of kingdom come…
I guess hell will freeze over before that happens.
I do not oppose the precautionary principle as it applies to environmental matters. I oppose it where it is applied to morals and ideology. It has already been tried and tested (Hitler, Stalin, the Inquisition, etc), and we all know the outcome. The problem with totalitarians is that because they believe they got it all right on morals, they want to impose their system on everyone by force if possible. That's not the way forward. If we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. Do not teach people what to think...teach people how to think. Do not force people to do as you wish. Convince them that you're right and they will willingly do it. But you have to be open to the fact that you might be wrong yourself.
The Bishop's question was rhetorical. What we're attacking is his argument because we've had enough imposition of ideology to know that censorship is the imposition of one ideology with the exclusion of any other. I believe we are being very fair. It is people who impose their beliefs on others that are being unfair.
And this is my intelligent answer.
I haven't seen any comment attacking Mgr Grech. Personally I have great respect for the church, but since I'm an atheist I have no problem pointing my finger at the flawed, archaic reasoning aimed at influencing PUBLIC policy.
The precautionary principle would apply in situations of grave risk. If anything it should be applied to guard against excessive control by powerful institutions (govt, church, corporations). Why should these interest groups want control over what we read, hear and see? So they can tell us what to think.
Censorship in itself has a great inherent risk: giving the authorities the tools to ban independent thought. What the church fails to understand is that she always plays in the hands of totalitarian right-wing demagogues, who play along until they get a grip on power.
@ Kenneth and all:
Part 2.
I do not intend to argue for the Church or otherwise - but according to what I feel.
Pornography can never be condoned even if it is presented disguised as art. There is a general trend nowadays to excuse all forms of depravity under the pretext of art, and the word is bandied about almost as if everybody has suddenly become an expert - it is insulting to the genuine art lovers to have such trash referred to as art.
The young have to be protected at all cost for we would be doing them a disservice if we allow certain base literature to be easily at hand and there are other strata of society who would feel upset, to say the least, if faced by pornographic material.
As to Kenneth’s quote above, I do not see it as a valid point, for the Maltese general public has been “bred” on politics and consequently, very much capable of critical thinking when it comes to electing politicians.
Part 1.
I feel that what distinguishes us from lesser beings, besides our brain power, is our dignity. If we lose our dignity we are not worthy of respect.
Brain power should be exercised and as such I am in favour of critical thinking but there are other characteristics which we would do well to cultivate and that is, in fact, our morality which is what helps us control our base instincts. It is hard enough to sustain a sound morality, let alone if we are constantly exposed to loose morality in the mistaken idea that such exposure could never effect us in a negative way.
Continued….
Most importantly however, even if some of us are highly critical and intelligent enough to realize how easily we can be manipulated, when we DO protest on the very same media, we are not heard.
"Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms in southern California schools after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for 'oral sex'."
I guess those kids have been scarred for life! what they read cannot be unread, the filth that's in a dictionary is astounding…
"It is scientifically proven that some media products can be psychologically or morally harmful"
that's one weasel argument, vague and obfuscated whilst using sciency words … hahaha
If you read the report from the US secret service after a spate of school killings, you'll find that their conclusion was: there is no link to violent games, films etc… if anything my reading of it was that most of these children had very busy families, running after jobs, careers and their adult life in general.
From my layman's reading of various studies that pop up in the media it seems that the biggest culprit to children going awry is lack of parental affection and lack of childhood stability.
Going for the morality slant is lame, focus the church's resources to get the government to invest in proper kindergartens and after school services for children at risk instead of wasting time on this vague and mysterious old monk potions to a perfect society.
"I hope you do not think that the Church has something to do with the way society has degenerated and lost all sense of human dignity!"
I do not think that of course..... I know that for an undeniable fact.
"As for teaching critical thinking. I am all for it and I do not suppose the Church has anything against that either."
You suppose wrong again! The Church has always been against critical thinking because reason is the enemy of blind faith. The Church spent ages torturing and killing all those who "dared" think differently and had canonized Thomas More, a sadistic animal who sent people to be burnt at the stake for being "heretics" and for translating the bible to a language the people could understand. Now we (critical thinkers) know why the church did not want the people to understand what was written in the bible and know how it cannot make sense. Ironically the people who oppose this fact are the ones who never bother to even read the bible in the first place.
Since the 70s, The Feminist Movement fought long and hard and made great strides forward in UK and elsewhere, and this time round, for once, Malta was up there with the best of them. And rightly so. Unfortunately, humans have a serious flaw in that they always opt to eat the icing on the cake first of all - they are suckers for pleasure (as in the all-too-familiar instant gratification?). Equality works on many fronts. Many women, too many woman?, free at last, opted to be equal to men in the sexual arena and the men, here as everywhere else, had a field-day. The rest is history. Turn back time?
"It’s not that I have a low view of the general public, but that I can actually see what lack of sound morals can lead to. How can one explain the ever growing list of teenage mothers, and fathers, who refuse to face up to their responsibilities? Why has society become so promiscuous? - I do not think that our youths are thinking critically, otherwise they wouldn’t have put themselves in such a mess."
Well I can also see the source of such confused morals. It's hard to teach people to have sound morals when your source of moral ethics is the bible which thinks slavery is ok, that the punishment of a rapist is to marry the victim (if he pays the father of course!), that to kill is ok as long as it is "the will of God", that adulterers and homosexuals and unruly children should be stoned to death, and that the sin of someone can be forgiven by punishing another (scapegoat). I could go on forever but I think you may have got the point as long as you think critically!!!
"How can one explain the ever growing list of teenage mothers, and fathers, who refuse to face up to their responsibilities? Why has society become so promiscuous?"
Easy...Because as the posters tell us, helmets help us protect ourselves during sexual activity...and since 1998 not even a single euro was invested in a National Sexual Health Policy
"How can one explain the ever growing list of teenage mothers, and fathers, who refuse to face up to their responsibilities?".
I was speaking of adults, and not of young teens. I fully endorse classification of materials such as books, film and theatre. What I oppose is anyone telling a 40-year-old (in July) like me what to read, watch or listen to.
"Why has society become so promiscuous? - I do not think that our youths are thinking critically, otherwise they wouldn’t have put themselves in such a mess".
Young teens aren't expected to think critically...at least most of them won't.
"I hope you do not think that the Church has something to do with the way society has degenerated and lost all sense of human dignity!".
It is partially to blame. Take sexuality for instance. When you make sexuality taboo for a long time, the probability is that some people will rebel by going from one extreme to the other.
"As for teaching critical thinking. I am all for it and I do not suppose the Church has anything against that either".
Faith itself is inherently (and by definition) opposed to critical thinking.
Your position is scary in its implications. Someone, presumably the current authorities, ie chusrh and state can decide who gets to read what based on their maturity... I hope I misunderstood what you wrote.
It’s not that I have a low view of the general public, but that I can actually see what lack of sound morals can lead to. How can one explain the ever growing list of teenage mothers, and fathers, who refuse to face up to their responsibilities? Why has society become so promiscuous? - I do not think that our youths are thinking critically, otherwise they wouldn’t have put themselves in such a mess.
I hope you do not think that the Church has something to do with the way society has degenerated and lost all sense of human dignity!
As for teaching critical thinking. I am all for it and I do not suppose the Church has anything against that either.
Your argument and that of the reverend fathers is that since the public is not in a position to judge critically, a superior intellect should tell them what media to read, watch or listen to. If we continue in this line of thinking we should also disallow the general public from voting because how can the public vote wisely if they lack 'critical judegment'. Whilst we are at it we should set up 'the thought and morality police' as they have in some islamic countries.
This line of thinking is frightening.
That is a very low view that you have of the general public. I think otherwise, but perhaps both me and the Bishop have a somewhat partial opinion - I happen to frequent circles that encourage critical thinking on whatever topic under the sun, while the Bishop belongs to a Church that values faith above critical thinking.
My view stems from the fact that many (if not most) devout Catholics are slowly but surely learning to use critical thinking (for instance in the matter of contraception, which the Church still opposes but many Catholics still use).
As for jumping up in arms against whatever is propounded by the authorities (especially the Church), yes, in matters that directly effect my life and the lives of those I care about, I do "jump up in arms" when I believe something disagreeable is being advocated or proposed for legislation.
As for friends and family who might not be critical thinkers, I would rather teach them to be critical thinkers, than treat all adults like children. Of course, having a nation of critical thinkers means that leaders lose some (or much) of their power to dictate. Perhaps that's the major concern?
We are ever ready to jump up in arms against whatever is propounded by the authorities and when the authorities happen to be the Church, we are even more ready to object.
All of us on this blog have reached a certain level of maturity and, therefore, we might not fall in the category that the Bishop had in mind but we all have families, friends and neighbours who might benefit rather than be shackled by the “precautionary principle”. We take precautionary measures to safeguard ourselves from anything that might harm us physically but we tend to ignore the responsibility we have regarding the formation of our moral values.
Thanks for the clarification, although I still wouldn't agree that "we" are not empowered with critical thinking. But perhaps, my positive view comes from the fact that I frequent circles where critical thinking is actually encouraged, and not suppressed or discouraged.
But here's what is most ironic. In the Bishop's view, a significant part of the population are not critical thinkers, and yet, these same people are empowered to elect politicians who are expected to be critical thinkers themselves and decide what we may see or read. Its like asking primary school students to elect their teachers, if you ask me.
Should we entrust to politicians voted-in by non-critical thinkers (in the Bishop's opinion) to decide for us what we may watch or read, and what not to?
So basically, to censor or not to censor; out of the question.
It is only totalitarian states/theocracies that "invoke the precautionary principle to withdraw from the market (censor) what (they believe) can be deleterious to the educational process that society embarks on". Unless we learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.
The first statement nullifies the question that follows. If we are not empowered to critically assess what we read or view, how are the authorities to know what is deleterious to society?
I'm sorry, but I find the Bishop's statement that I am not empowered to critically assess what I read or view (unless the Bishop's comment is being misrepresented), to be very insulting, debasing, presumptuos and arrogant.