Google censors TheologyOnLine!

Going back to your last post...

You stated that: "However, the people in a photograph have the right to control what happens with their own image..."

From where do they derive this right? Are you anti-security camera? After all, they are constantly recording us without our consent.

Even if they did have that right, they are still acting as censors. I don't think motive is an issue in the act of censorship. They are acting as their own censors to prevent harm to themselves. A government censor may believe he or she is acting to prevent harm to society.

It is still censorship. To impose your opinion on whether and how a picture or image is used is censorship, no matter how laudable.

Is it censorship to prevent someone from having sex with a goat in a public place? What if they say it's art? Isn't that censorship? Do you support their right to do and say as they like in that public place, no matter how upsetting it may be?

What if someone decided that their form of self-expression was to stand outside a synagogue and loudly read passages from Mein Kampf using a bullhorn? What if they claimed it was a performance piece? Would you prevent them from doing so?

Originally posted by PureX

One of the reasons I do not believe we need censorship is because many of the circumstances that people want "censored" are already illegal criminal activity. I have no problem witholding a photo of a crime from the public, because 1. it's evidence of a criminal act and as such needs to be handled like any other evidence of criminal activity, and 2. because the victim in the photo did not consent to the crime nor the documentation of the crime, and they have a right to control what happens with their own image. As that right was denied by the rapist taking the photos, it would be illegal to distribute them without the victim's permission.

Regarding "child porn" which incidentally have not yet even mentioned, it is evidence of a crime, because having sex with children is a crime. So it should be treated as above, with the exception that a child would not be expected to reasonably "give permission" for the photos to be distributed, just as they could not reasonably "give permission" to have sex in the first place. A child's "permision" is not bonefide regarding sexual issues.

Click to expand...

Do you not realize you are outlining a direct form of censorship?

Originally posted by Flipper
If I take a picture of you in an unguarded moment, whose picture is it?

Click to expand...

It's your picture, but it's my image. You will need my permission to exploit it. However, if your picture of me exposes nothing that I was not willfully exposing myself, in public, then my permission is already implied. For example, if I am walking in a public place, I have already exposed myself willingly to the public, and so your photo of me walking in public will not expose me in any way that I have not already done myself. So my permission is already implied, as I have "exposed" myself.

If you use this image to make money, however, I may have grounds to sue you to stop, or to pay some restitution.

Originally posted by Knight
Do you not realize you are outlining a direct form of censorship?

Click to expand...

I'm sure that in your mind this is true, but in fact I haven't "censored" anyone. I merely supported the laws regarding criminal evidence, and the illegal exploitation of one's physical image. If I had claimed these photos be witheld or destroyed against the wishes of those involved, that would have been censorship.

Originally posted by PureX
I'm sure that in your mind this is true, but in fact I haven't "censored" anyone. I merely supported the laws regarding criminal evidence, and the illegal exploitation of one's physical image. If I had claimed these photos be witheld or destroyed against the wishes of those involved, that would have been censorship.

Click to expand...

So you are asserting that criminal evidence should be censored?

Originally posted by Flipper
Going back to your last post...

You stated that: "However, the people in a photograph have the right to control what happens with their own image..."

From where do they derive this right?

Click to expand...

They get this right from God, I suppose, as it was God who gave us each our own unique image. Why would my external form be any less mine than my internal organs? Should you be allowed to take part of my liver without my permission?

Originally posted by Flipper Are you anti-security camera? After all, they are constantly recording us without our consent.

Click to expand...

Those cameras are not allowed to record images of me that are not public. My permission is implied by my being in public, but it is not implied otherwise, and is in fact illegal, then.

Originally posted by Flipper Even if they did have that right, they are still acting as censors. I don't think motive is an issue in the act of censorship. They are acting as their own censors to prevent harm to themselves. A government censor may believe he or she is acting to prevent harm to society.

Click to expand...

It's not censorship for one to control their own image or expression. Censorship is the control of someone else's image or expression.

Originally posted by Flipper Is it censorship to prevent someone from having sex with a goat in a public place? What if they say it's art? Isn't that censorship? Do you support their right to do and say as they like in that public place, no matter how upsetting it may be?

Click to expand...

It may be art, but it's still cruelty to an animal and is illegal. The "artist" should be arrested for his crime. He is not arrested because you are upset, he is arrested because the goat is upset. *smile*

Originally posted by Flipper What if someone decided that their form of self-expression was to stand outside a synagogue and loudly read passages from Mein Kampf using a bullhorn? What if they claimed it was a performance piece? Would you prevent them from doing so?

Click to expand...

As long as this "artist" has not broken any laws, yes, he should be allowed to speak his peace.

Originally posted by Knight
So you are asserting that criminal evidence should be censored?

Click to expand...

I'm asserting that criminal evidence should be treated as criminal evidence, for whatever reasons that we treat criminal evidence as we do. If evidence is kept from the public, it is to aid in a fair trial, I assume. Though I do not believe that evdence is kept from the public. But in the case of the victim's image, that is for the victim to decide.

Originally posted by PureX
I'm asserting that criminal evidence should be treated as criminal evidence, for whatever reasons that we treat criminal evidence as we do. If evidence is kept from the public, it is to aid in a fair trial, I assume. Though I do not believe that evdence is kept from the public. But in the case of the victim's image, that is for the victim to decide.

Click to expand...

Currently criminal evidence is censored on just about every level imaginable. Criminal evidence is probably THE most censored thing one could think of. Do you agree criminal evidence should remain so highly censored?

It's not censorship for one to control their own image or expression. Censorship is the control of someone else's image or expression.

Click to expand...

I don't think you've made a case for that. There are certain misrepresentations of one's image that can be actionable, but that is because they are libellous or imply some kind of an endorsement not actually shared by the person whose image is thus employed. In other cases, an image may be concealed to protect the identity of one who is younger than the age of responsibility, as you correctly identify.

The image itself is not considered inviolable. In fact, you agree with that - you state that by going out in public, you have implicitly made a contract that allows you to be videotaped. I don't think your position is very consistent.

So, a woman is raped in a public place, it's okay for someone to make a TV show out of security camera footage (once the rule of law has been observed)? How does her right of privacy trump this contract that you seem to be be alluding to?

Originally posted by Knight
Oh, I am well aware of that my fine friend Freak. I am just going to drag Pure-X though his own contradictory mud for sport.

Click to expand...

:thumb:

Pure X is necrophilia or beastality evil?

A simple yes or no will do.

Pure-Bull errrrrr... I mean Pure-X states, "I don't agree with any form of censorship."

I wonder how Pure-X would feel If I were to have gained knowledge of all of Pure-X's personal financial information such as; bank account numbers, credit card numbers and other personal information about Pure-X. Imagine further that I wanted to broadcast that information via the local newspaper, a spot on the local radio station and I also wanted to post Pure-X's personal financial information here at TOL.

Do you suppose Pure-X would support or oppose these media outlets censorship of this private information?

I *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*.....

Ugh. Stupid censors.

Originally posted by novice
Pure-Bull errrrrr... I mean Pure-X states, "I don't agree with any form of censorship."

I wonder how Pure-X would feel If I were to have gained knowledge of all of Pure-X's personal financial information such as; bank account numbers, credit card numbers and other personal information about Pure-X. Imagine further that I wanted to broadcast that information via the local newspaper, a spot on the local radio station and I also wanted to post Pure-X's personal financial information here at TOL.

Do you suppose Pure-X would support or oppose these media outlets censorship of this private information?

Click to expand...

:shocked:

Originally posted by Knight
Currently criminal evidence is censored on just about every level imaginable. Criminal evidence is probably THE most censored thing one could think of. Do you agree criminal evidence should remain so highly censored?

Click to expand...

Your definition of censorship seems to be very broad, so naturally you believe that evidence is being highly censored, but as far as I know, it is only withheld from the public until the trial, so that it won't cause undue bias. The trial itself is public, and so any evidence brought to bear would be exposed then, and certainly after the trial it's all public record. I'm not sure that I'd consider this delay in exposition, censorship.

Originally posted by Flipper
I don't think you've made a case for that. There are certain misrepresentations of one's image that can be actionable, but that is because they are libellous or imply some kind of an endorsement not actually shared by the person whose image is thus employed. In other cases, an image may be concealed to protect the identity of one who is younger than the age of responsibility, as you correctly identify.

Click to expand...

We do in fact own our own image. For example, you can't use Bill Gates face (or anyone else's) to sell widgets, without his permission. You can't use Bill's face to promote some moral agenda without his permission, either. The only time you can use his face without permission is when permission has already been implied by the circumstances.

Originally posted by Flipper The image itself is not considered inviolable. In fact, you agree with that - you state that by going out in public, you have implicitly made a contract that allows you to be videotaped. I don't think your position is very consistent.

So, a woman is raped in a public place, it's okay for someone to make a TV show out of security camera footage (once the rule of law has been observed)? How does her right of privacy trump this contract that you seem to be be alluding to?

Click to expand...

There is no implicit contract that says we are allowed to be vidiotaped outside. As I previously explained, it is our own form (image) that we "own". When we go out in public, we are allowing others to view this form, and so a photograph of us in public has implied consent. We did not consent to being raped, in public or anywhere else, and so a photo of this does not have our impleid consent.

Originally posted by Freak
Pure X is necrophilia or beastality evil?

A simple yes or no will do.

Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous question and has nothing to do with censorship.

Originally posted by novice
Pure-Bull errrrrr... I mean Pure-X states, "I don't agree with any form of censorship."

I wonder how Pure-X would feel If I were to have gained knowledge of all of Pure-X's personal financial information such as; bank account numbers, credit card numbers and other personal information about Pure-X. Imagine further that I wanted to broadcast that information via the local newspaper, a spot on the local radio station and I also wanted to post Pure-X's personal financial information here at TOL.

Do you suppose Pure-X would support or oppose these media outlets censorship of this private information?

Click to expand...

The childish insult aside, you have a good point. I had not previously considered information in terms of censorship. As an artist, I automatically thought of imagery. I looked up the word censorship in my dictionary, and the definitions it gave were rather vague, but it did use the example of military censorship, and I have to confess that in the case of endangering life and limb, censorship of military information is appropriate.

You asked about personal information, however, and I would say that at least some of our personal information would be "owned" by us, just as our image is, and so would be protected as personal property. A bank account, for example, could be viewed much as a photograph, where the photogragher owns the photo, but the face in the photo is mine. He can possess the photo, but he can't show it without my permission. Likewise, the bank may own the account, but I own the money in it. The bank can't share that information without my permission. Unfortunately, here in the US, and in most of the world, in fact, the laws regarding information are not as clearly established as those protecting our bodies or even images of our bodies. We need to work on this.

Pure-X, I am not trying to be a jerk but I am curious....

Is it safe to say that you overstated your case when you asserted..

"I don't agree with any form of censorship."

Originally posted by Knight
Pure-X, I am not trying to be a jerk but I am curious....

Is it safe to say that you overstated your case when you asserted..

"I don't agree with any form of censorship."

Click to expand...

No, but it would be safe to say that I over-generalized in making such a statement. I was thinking of censorship regarding expression, rather than information. Off hand, I can't think of an example of self-expression that would need to be censored, as we already have laws that protect us from abusing each other. As long as these laws are obeyed, censorship is unnecessary.

I believe that a founding principal of our (US) government is that we are free to do and believe and say whatever we wish EXCEPT when it infringes upon the rights of our fellow citizens. Following this principal, and the laws being obeyed, censorship would only become a moral issue, as any criminal aspect of it would already have been dealt with. And as this is America, morality is not the government's business. So it becomes a moot issue, to my thinking. I'm sure there are lots of folks who think they have the right and obligation to dictate morality to everyone else, but thankfully, here in America, we are protected from their desire to do so.

But regarding some forms of information, the problem is not that of a citizen or group of citizens abusing the rights of another, but that information that rightly belongs to all of us, if exposed, may endanger some of us physically. In this kind of instance, we couldn't rely on the already established rights of ownership to protect us, and so some form of censorship would have to take place.

The war in Iraq is a good example. We all "own" the information regarding what our army is doing, and how they are doing it. But if we were to make this information available to all the citizens who rightly own it, it's very likely to endanger our own soldiers as they attempt to carry out their task. Thus, the laws of ownership need to be superceded, and that does constitute censorship. Once the danger has passed, however, this information (that belongs to us all) should then be distributed to we who rightfully "own" it. So in a sense, the censorship is only temporary. But never the less it is censorship, and I do agree with it.