I had a class about censorship this week and it made me interested in your opinions about this issue.
Which material should be censored and how far do you think a government should go in censorship?

I think in Holland the government is acting quite well: you can publish most things, only limitations are when you're encouraging other people to use hatred and violence.
It would be very bad if the government is using too much censorship is my opinion, you should be free to suppress your opinion as much as possible.

I'm wondering how people from other countries think about this?

Yesterday in Italy, there was a demonstration for freedom of the press against the policies of premier Silvio Berlusconi. I'm wondering if someone knows how it is with censorship in Italy, is it really that bad?

Censorship is quite bad there. Berlusconi owns most of the media in Italy and if you work for one of them you can not write bad things about him unless you want to be fired. Was once some sort of documentory of it on TV. Can't remember a lot of it anymore.

Netherlands is worse then you think as well. Maybe not in the normal media as the papers and TV but a lot of things on the internet are on a black list. Lot of countries do that just like Australia. wikileaks.org/wiki/Leaked_Australian_bla...reveals_banned_sites OOPS I would say

It is so strange to me that a country so close tho the Netherlands has suchs different standards in censorship.
I think that media is very important to show the different aspects of current politics so that people will make an opnion based on all the essential information they need.

How far do you think governments can go in censorship? I think they can use it sometimes to protect people from things they don't want to see such as really dsigusting offensive things but should for no reason be used for politics

No in many cases it is netter not to have censorships however there are so many bad examples of free press having horrible results. For example: when a suicide becomes news others follow sometimes resulting in a wave. The same thing goes for specific crimes, people copy eachother resulting in for example last year in a wave of brick throwing at cars on a highway. And then a case witch is more contreversal: when the images of a dead American soldier tied behind a car in Somalia appeared on tv America quickly withdrew it's forces, resulting in more chaos in Somalia. Sometimes a little censorship can be good right?

Censorship is never alright, even not a little bit. It's not the task of a government to decide what may be heard or seen how terrible the stuff may be. However I do agree that not everything has to be told but that should be the responsibility of the media. Media tends to blow stuff all out of proportion or to give only one side of a story and given a wrong 'picture' to the public.

Also people should 'censor' themselves. As Kant already used to say your freedoms stop existing where that of someone else his freedom starts. With other words you are free to do or say what you want as long these actions don't hurt others.

atleast that is my opinion on it

I think that sometimes censorship can be a good thing. For instance censorship on age. Or indirect censorship on age which means that some shows are not permitted before a certain time of the day.

I just heard that the Iranian government has banned three entire newspapers because they where critical about the president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I think that that is awful and a good example on how far some governments can go in censoring things.

In theory, censorship should never be necessary.
But about the responsibility of the media: it's hard for the press to take that. It's like a prisoners dilemma: if you don't publish the news you shouldn't, someone else would and get the attention. So it's better for you to do it, while you actually can think you shouldn't.
So in that cases, the government can offer the solution, the trap to get off the dilemma, and prohibiting to publish it.

But censorship should never be used to protect the government, that's mixing up interests. I don't think that is happening in the Netherlands, or is it?

I'm curious how that is in the other countries (Germany, Indonesia, India, Turkey for example): do you guys think the government is censoring to be better of?

That kind of censorship happens...sometimes. If they get out we get those scandals. Like the fire where a painter died in some government building. The report was not really made public and such. The government presents the dutch people, and without them no government. Yet we have state secrets and such. It may contain sensitive information but it's sort of a form of censorship

If you go even further you could say that a total free flow of information would legalize the violation of personal privacy. That is why people have to take responsibilities in those matters. This censorship is actually a quit dangerous terrain to be on so think carefully and you know what your lines are.

And yes for reporters it can be difficult but well keep some integrity and don't publish it if you think you shouldn't. That this choice isn't that obvious is just a flaw of our economic system

Hi there

I think one issue that shouldn't be overlooked is indirect censorship - newspapers are sometimes quite reluctant to print articles which might offend regular advertisers in their newspapers.... That would speak in favour of independent funding of the media... There is a left-wing newspaper in France which, for that reason, does not use advertising as a source of income, they are entirely funded by their readers but therefore also more expensive than other newspapers.

Silvia

As long as the censorship is meant to protect certain minorities that will be harm if it will be published, I guess that's fine. As long as the material is not by any mean offending certain people's right. It varies in every single case I guess.

You raise an interesting point sylvia! Makes me wonder if then the paper then would be less critical towardstheir tagetgroup. Right wing civilians, but still good to see these initiatives. It shows that people have a genuine desire for objective media

This topic really makes me look better at my newspaper..

Silvia: that's completely true, never thought of that though! I'm wondering how my newspaper would deal with that.. Cause I'm thinking, what if the main sponsor of it had a great scandal and they found it out.. If they don't publish it and all other papers will (which have other advertisers) that would be very strange and everyone would notice. But still it can be a considering I guess: in the way you publish it, very 'mean' or more balanced.

Johnrendy: are there examples of that in your country, where minorities got protected with staying out of the papers with particular news?
I know in Holland they don't.. For example foreigners: newspapers keep on publishing new that says "a foreign person" has stolen something or did other crimes, which I guess is very influencing the public opinion about foreigners. Because some people start to think all foreigner will commit crimes therefore .
But you can't prohibit papers from doing that, in Holland not at least, freedom op the press. Which is a good thing, although I'm wondering how free it is. Have no real sight on that!