Hi Tom, as you were just saying about Censorship....
TR>  CH> Well, that certainly puts a different slant on it.  That is 
censorship
TR>  CH> for the sake of censorship.  There is no question that it would
TR>  CH> certainly be beneficial to society if the plans for a nuclear weapon
TR>  CH> were not readily availabe to people inclined to be terrorists or
TR>  CH> mentally unbalanced.
TR> 
TR> I disagree, I think that preservation of life and national
TR> security are two fairly good reasons for censorship. Let's make an
TR> analogy and see how you would answer a little thought provoker.
TR> Let's say that you have a well that your family uses for all of
TR> their water needs, to include drinking water. You go outside one day
TR> and find a sign explaining how to poison the well. Would you remove
TR> the sign and censor this information, or would you leave it there
TR> claiming free speech for whoever placed it there? 
On my property, I would remove the sign.  Censorship begins *and ends*
in the home.  On somone else's property, it is entirely up to the owner
of the property.  In the public domain, it should be societal mores.
TR> The nuclear
TR> weapon example you gave above would be taking this personal argument
TR> and expanding it to a society. The nuclear weapon adds a little bit
TR> of spice to the discussion since it is a military secret. Let's go
TR> ahead and breach the subject, should anything be classified, secret,
TR> or top secret? Isn't this censorship?
Yes.  The knowledge to build a nuclear weapon is in the public domain
already.  The details on a *specific* weapon may very well be
classified and I have no problem with that.  It is the general
knowledge that I don't think should be censored.
TR> You made some very good points in your message. I'm well aware
TR> that censorship may not succeed in keeping the information away from
TR> some people. My first question would be very simple, "Is there a
TR> valid and logical reason for SOME censorship?" My second question
TR> would also be very simple, "Could anyone really say with good
TR> conscience there should be NO censorship?" Now you get to the harder
TR> questions which have already been brought up: 1) Where do we stop
TR> with censorship?; 2) Who decides what should and should not be
TR> censored? Just thoughts for discussion. 
You hit the problem on the head.  That is just where do you draw the
line?
RD 
sandman@azstarnet.com - A newspaper ISP - Arizona Daily Star
sandman@brassroots.org - A no compromise gun rights organization.
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
___
 X KWQ/2 1.2i X I just RTFM and now I am ROTFLMAO.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------