Can censorship ever be morally justified, or is it inherently a violation of freedom
Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
In an era marked by rapid technological advancement, widespread access to information, and increasing global unrest, the role of censorship has become a matter of urgent and complex debate. This discussion seeks to examine whether censorship, when employed by governing bodies or institutions, is a justified measure for ensuring societal stability, national security, and public well-being. The proposition maintains that censorship, far from being a temporary or situational tool, may serve as a necessary and enduring mechanism for guiding public discourse, limiting harm, and fostering a more cohesive and harmonious society. The opposition, however, contends that censorship fundamentally undermines individual liberties, suppresses dissent, and sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian control.
Agreed with Moozer, you should probably update the title/resolution to make it clear exactly what position you are supporting.
It cant ever be justified, because a condition for censorship to be justified is a constant debate about topic which it wants censored, making it impossible to censor a topic as it must debate it to justify itself, thus cannot censor it and be justified in doing that, at it negates the debate, and with it, a condition it needs to justify itself.
Sounds interesting, I might accept. The description would benefit from some definitions though, specifically what you mean by "justified". Also, it's a little unclear which side you are on.