a look at censorship philosophically

Censorship has two aspects, one is self-censorship and the second is public censorship.
The self censoring aspect is basic: No hon, the dress doesn’t make you look fat or you
tell the brain dead boss, what a wonderful boss he is, basic survival tactics.
The public censorship is far harder and far more troubling.
Why censor? the mods here can say without issue, we can’t have this because
of the laws, as in pedophile material, they can also say in light of security matters
for example, I post the instructions for the making of a nuclear bomb here,
which by the way any first year physics student can handle. So you can censor in terms
of protecting the society as a whole or parts of society, minors.
Now we get to the tricky aspect, I post pictures of a gay couple getting married at
the moment they kiss. Now one may object on the grounds that the picture is a danger
to society because it undermines the values and morals of society.
This argument is religious based and must be treated as such.
If the mods do censor the pictures, then it means this site is de facto, a Christian site,
unless it censors ALL religious based idea’s and that leads to problems.
For example, Muslims object to pictures of Mohammed, I post a picture claiming
it is a picture of Mohammed, Muslims object and thus the picture comes down.
However what if someone says, I love mankind, one might rightly object because
it comes from Jesus and I object to anything having to do with Jesus. Or what
if someone fails to praise ancestors and then the ancestors worshipers of china might object
because it fails to properly give credit to the ancestors as is required by them.
Almost anything can be objected to, based on religious grounds. Where do you draw the line?
wait until people begin to complain in which case I will complain about anything I disagree with
upon religious grounds in which case, my religion becomes the dominant religion around here.
You have to draw the line somewhere but where? I believe the best bet is to deny any, ANY, religious grounds
because that makes this site religious based and we, the royal we, have a philosophy site, not a religious site.
The second censoring aspect is security. You censor because it might, might, put people in danger or support
people already in danger or support people who practice pedophile activities. The society as a whole agrees
that child porn is bad, and does everything it can to end this practice including the transfer of said material.

the public aspect means we are doing censorship in the name and for the people, but which people?
The majority, the minority? a minority might claim that they are being persecuted for their religious practices
of pedophile activities. We have a right in the constitution for freely practicing our religion as we deem fit,
not as the government tells us, and we see this in the polygamy practice in Utah. I use pedophile because it is
first of all, objectionable in every way and yet it can be justified in a religious sense, in full disclosure I am against
child porn in every way, but it is useful for being a target.

To censor for the public, in the public’s name is to assume, yep, assume that you know what
is in the public interest. Censorship is to assume that the censor has the public interest in mind
and yet, we and the censor cannot possibly know what is in the public interest as there is no way
to really gauge what is in the public interest.
How do you determine what is the public interest?
Many questions and few answers.

Kropotkin