Insufficient Authority - Do not open this thread

[richlevy]

Insufficient Authority - You are not authorized to view this thread. Do not open this thread.

[richlevy]

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.

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?

Originally Posted by richlevy

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?

No. In fact, I would say any adult has the right to all information within the framework of the exceptions you noted above. I have a problem with the word "competent" because that means someone else may get to determine my "competency." The individual should decide on their own if they are competent or not. I remember being 8 years old and a very advanced reader for my age. The school librarian didn't want to let me check out certain books because she claimed I couldn't possibly understand them. I had to read aloud to her from one of the books to prove that I could read at that level.

Freedom of information is the backbone of a democracy, IMO. An informed people can make better decisions. Lately, too many Americans have been making decisions on the basis of misinformation and outright lies.

Information is power. I loved being a librarian because I felt that I was helping to empower people. When someone came up and asked me how to find information on some topic, not only would I find it for them, I'd show them how to use the resources for themselves next time around. We kept a complete collection of all the State and Federal Statutes in the reference area, and explained to people the basics on how to use them.

Secrecy is the tool of people who want to take your power away and empower themselves over you. Period.

[9th Engineer]

There is a place for classification in certain areas, I wouldn't say we should have as much of it as we do and certainly the less the government does the better, but not everyone has a right to all information. It is possible to 'own' information and it has the same laws concerning property use. Classification and censorship is akin to people installing locks to protect their property.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Classification and censorship is akin to people installing locks to protect their property.

Censorship has nothing to do with protecting property. The goverment is probably the only "owner" that would censor information they produced unless forced to do so.

Do you believe in censorship to 'protect' the person examining content? Is there anything too disturbing for the avergage adult to handle?

Originally Posted by richlevy

Censorship has nothing to do with protecting property. The goverment is probably the only "owner" that would censor information they produced unless forced to do so.

Do you believe in censorship to 'protect' the person examining content? Is there anything too disturbing for the avergage adult to handle?

Agree that censorship cannot be compared to protecting property. Keeping certain information classified to protect a nation from its enemies is about as close as it gets.

I think its up to the "average adult" to decide for themselves what is too disturbing. For example, if I am reading a book, and the author starts to describe in graphic details one of the characters being tortured and goes on for page after gory page, I skip that part of the book or stop reading it completely. Others may have stronger stomachs than I, and read through such descriptions unperturbed. I don't have the right to tell anyone else that they can't read that book because it upset ME. And you don't have the right to prohibit my access to information that may be upsetting to YOU.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by richlevy

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?

Personally, I feel that way about my social security number, but darn little else. Okay, the launch codes for the US nukes. That's probably about it. And that thing from back in high school. No one needs to know about that.

There are obscenity laws which operate against specific types of information, but it's not clear if they exist to protect the viewer.

If that sort of content is available only on demand, rather than accidentally, I don't have a problem with that, just so long as no other laws are broken ... toiletcam and other voyeuristic sites where the person being filmed isn't aware of it, or porn shots involving minors who cannot consent ... that's content that shouldn't be available under any circumstances.

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?

As in my statement above, it's not just about the recipient of the information ... the source itself may be illegal in some way.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by richlevy

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.

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?

Hi- New here-
I'm not a fan of Rand (Ayn)- but she points out in "The Virtue of Selfishness" that the definition of selfish changed after the 50's. Selfishness did not used to be at the exclusion of others. With the modern psychotherapy and the self-help generations to thank for demonization of this concept, selfish has morphed into a term of evil- when it used to be proactive. Do for your self so you may do for others. I do think selfish behavior is beneficial to society as long as it is balanced with the ability to do for others. Selfishness is not black and white. Without out a me- I cannot do for you.


As far as banning- you missed snuff films. This includes snuff porn. I knew someone with a highly illegal film called Uncle Godda**. I watched part of it to see if it was authentic. I was not happy. I should have turned the owner in. Not only for his preferences for illegal underground, violent, murderous video, but also I found he had a proclivity for hitting women. Yes, it's extreme. I don't think adults should watch murder media. This may be obvious to some....but guess what, these films are made because there is a market for it!!!!
~Cicero

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why was that film illegal? Unless it was stolen or illegally copied, what makes it illegal.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Why was that film illegal? Unless it was stolen or illegally copied, what makes it illegal.

Ummm.....Are you familiar with what a snuff video is?

Hint *do not google that- you will be ping'd*

[JerryM]

I thought the title was an open invitation for a first post. Having looked around a bit, I think I will enjoy visiting with this bunch (& perhaps add a bit of weight to the Texian/Southwest faction)

I've never been terribly impressed by verbal admonitions with no apparent teeth. This is probably due to having spent over twenty years in the U.S. Coast Guard, where I always knew exactly what the consequences would be if I failed to follow orders.

While working on my civilian job after I retired from the CG, I once knew an MIS person who had the ability to message all users of our mainframe from her desk in St. Louis. She felt that was too impersonal, so when she needed to do something that could be totally screwed if anyone were on the system, she would call me in Texas and ask me to contact all 25 users in our location and tell them to stay off the system. She could have sent a single system message and then disconnected all users at one time. I never managed to convince her that a simple disconnect is much more effective than a 3rd party message (which may or may not be delivered and recognized as important or authoritative).

Jerry Murdock

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Ummm.....Are you familiar with what a snuff video is?

Hint *do not google that- you will be ping'd*

I've seen snuff videos, most of which are faked, by the way. What law makes them illegal?


Hi JerryM, I second Cicero's welcome to the Cellar.

[Ibby]

The only things that deserve to be banned/censored are Nirvana, Green Day, Mallpunk, and Emo.

[Flint]

Other: I've seen plenty of reverse-psychology "don't post here" threads, but the phrase "Insufficient Authority" intrigued me.

[Beestie]

The absence of consequences.