If you made it here, then you certainly fit into the spirit of the Cellar.
I posted this thread to open up a discussion on rule-breaking and the 'right' to information. Breaking rules obviously has a long history in the world and in this country.
In general, with information there are three basic arguments for breaking rules on viewing restricted material.
The “me” argument is basically that the person feels that he or she is above the law in regards to that rule. This is more of a 1980's argument which promotes selfish behavior as beneficial to society.
The anti-establishment argument is based on Watergate and the Pentagon papers and makes the case that many secrets deserve to be revealed based on known secrets that were kept secret as an abuse of power and not for the public good. The is more of a 1960's argument in response to the more compliant attitudes of the earlier decades.
The 'information wants to be free' is one half of 1980's argument based on the assumption that information is so liquid that keeping it locked away will be difficult, so why try.
Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Information wants to be free" is an expression first recorded as pronounced by Stewart Brand at the first Hackers' Conference in 1984, in the following context:
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."[1]
|
In general, is there any knowledge that is so destructive to the human soul that an argument could be made that it should be forbidden?
So far, most arguments for restricting or forbidding data have to do with effects on others. Child pornography laws are intended to protect children from being coerced (no child can give consent) into sexual situations and most other secrets are to protect national interests, corporate interests, or the privacy of the subject.
There are obscenity laws which operate against specific types of information, but it's not clear if they exist to protect the viewer.
Putting aside all of these issues and just focusing on the reader/viewer/listener, is there any kind of information which is so damaging that it should ethically be banned from being shown to a competent adult?