In what cases, if any, would censorship be okay?

Answer 1

The only case I can think of is during war when leaking of sensitive information could help the enemy.

Answer 2

It depends on what kind of censorship you're talking about. If we're talking about censorship of thoughts or words that people use in private, then not only is it unacceptable to censor them, but it's also unfeasible, and would create a lot of backlash.

I think there are definitely cases in which censorship of the media is warranted. Allowing the abuse of minors to be aired or published is never acceptable (sexual exploitation or otherwise). Censoring the timing of airing certain things is also ok--meaning, I don't care if they show nudity on TV, but maybe not in a commercial that airs during a kid's show or when kids are most likely up and watching TV. With that said, it is far more the responsibility of a child's parents to monitor what their child is watching than it is the government's. Also, I can see the reasoning behind the censorship of certain national security secrets, though I would argue that transparency in government is much more desirable. So, prior restraint can be enforced in cases in which a news story would reveal a severe weakness of the government or governmental facilities, if the information is not readily available. But it would not be enforceable in cases where the government is breaking the law (eg, Bush's illegal wire-tapping/data-mining programs) because accountability keeps governments in line. Here, I'll contradict what someone else said: I think that the media has a duty to air graphic depictions of war, and that the government has a duty to allow them to do so, in the name of governmental transparency.

I also support the US Supreme Court's ruling on "fighting words." That is, there are certain things that cannot be said in a public forum because are likely to incite violence or rioting. The government's job is to look out for public welfare, and if it is likely that a public safety hazard will be created by someone's public words or actions, then the government has every duty to prevent that.

However, self-censorship is always permissible, and just smart. I don't intend to walk into a KKK rally wearing a Black Panther beret and start cursing at them, simply because I don't want to get my *** kicked by a bunch of rednecks.

Answer 3

I firmly believe in self censorship. If you don't want to see or hear it, don't. The only time I believe in public censorship is when you wouldn't have that choice.

That said, If you are watching a public airwave, you should have warning about what it contains. Like no exposed breasts during a Super Bowl Halftime. Mind you, I look at exposed breasts. I just like to know when to expect them, you know?

Censorship is OK to keep the content of a transmission within what people are expecting. It is not OK to say no transmissions can contain it.

-Dio

Answer 4

in the case of underage child nudity, horribly graphic images( wartime- bloody bodyparts, guts hanging out, barely looking human type images) In these cases, sensorship is warranted!

Answer 5

censorship is Never ok

Answer 6

any instance in where children are being sexually exploited.
anything offensive to basic morality
anything physical cruel to another human being
anything that could incite a riot without cause
anything threatening physical harm

gosh, there's plenty

Answer 7

when the show contains nudity/graphic images, bad words, violence, etc and children might be watching... and what Maria said