> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> Chambers wrote:
> > I'd be interested in knowing, who do you think had a significant
> > negative effect on society by not being censored?
>
> Hitler?

There are two major negative events associated with Hitler, being the 
Holocaust and World War II.

Of the two, neither can be attributed to Hitler himself.

As far as the Holocaust goes, antisemitism had been around for centuries 
before Hitler, and had been particularly strong in Germany in the decades 
leading up to the 30s.  For instance, Richard Wagner, the noted composer, 
was widely known for his hatred of the Jews, and he died six years before 
Hitler was born.  Yet even he didn't cause popular opinion, but rather 
expressed and echoed it.

In other words, Germany as a societal whole had been moving towards the 
Holocaust for some time.

And as far as the Second World War goes, if Hitler hadn't started it, 
someone else would have.  Most of the material I've read on the subject 
agrees that the economic sanctions imposed after the first World War, 
combined with the widespread death, destruction and poverty that naturally 
followed it, ripened Europe for another conflict.

So again, we have an outspoken individual, yes, but society accepted him 
because he mirrored popular opinion at the time.  Removing Hitler from the 
scene would have prevented neither the Holocaust nor WWII.

Here's the thing about censorship that always got to me: they're going 
after the symptom, but ignoring the underlying problem.  If, to go back to 
the original example, people often post crude and vulgar comments on 
YouTube, *can* you solve the problem by censoring YouTube?

The answer, of course, is "no."  While you will trim the comments from 
YouTube, those same people will continue to use foul language in their 
daily lives and on other web sites they frequent.  In other words, the 
symptom of offensive YouTube comments will be gone, but the underlying 
problem of people using offensive language will remain (and will be 
unchanged).

If you really want to affect people's actions and attitudes, then you 
can't legislate or proscribe your own mores on them.  All you'll do is 
inspire resentment, anger and bitterness (and a resentful, angry and 
bitter crowd of internet commenters deprived of their favorite outlet is 
not a group you want to have pissed off at you, *especially* if you don't 
like foul language).  The long-term solution, of course, is for parents to 
teach their children what is and isn't appropriate.  And if, over time, 
parents neglect to teach their children that certain language is 
inappropriate, doesn't that language become appropriate - and make 
censorship of it a moot point in the process?

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message