Posted by krazy kat on June 26, 2002, at 10:59:35
In reply to Re: Memorial (Re: sar thread)- a rebuke of sorts » JonW » wendy b., posted by JonW on June 26, 2002, at 7:24:53
Jon and all:
These are just my thoughts. I have spent way too much time on them, but this is an important issue to me as a one-time journalist. Sorry, it's long. :(
Censorship on Dr. Bob's site is one thing - it's his site.
censorship in theory is another:
"I think people are entitled to a good quality of life and we should do what we can as a society to ensure that -- including giving us the right to choose when we die. And censoring our news when reporting suicide may also be the right thing to do, who knows?"
Who determines that 'good' quality of life? Who determines what is 'right' in this context? Are those definitions stable or fluid?
Britain's looking at a bill that would strengthen a physician's ability to keep a mentally ill person hospitalized and on meds (against their will) for an extended period of time (see social thread - very interesting). This was prompted by the murder of someone by a schizophrenic. Is that justifiable?
An 'elite few' run things - everywhere - that's how it's always been, and I daresay how it will always be. I believe Cancerman is their cheif (that's a joke to liven things up :)).
The only recourse the majority has to avoid potentially horrific siutations, where those few get too much power, and too high a quality a life as compared to others, is the press. Without our first and foremost right, we have nothing.
Who needs protection? children. and animals. they have no "voice". do the mentally ill have a "voice"? until they are incarcerated in a system similar to the one being suggested in Britain (and Britain is, what, the world's Most civilized society, so how frightening is this?), they most certainly do.
If "society" withholds stories about suicides, then, should "it" withhold all bad news? What about copycatters? This debate has been going on for decades.
I'll say one thing - the press seems less responsible now than it has been since yellow journalism. There is no need to hound a former president Still because he has a sexual addiction; no need to publish pictures of a school shooting that are going to accomplish nothing but sales of that mag. No need to publish the details of an auto-erotic suicide of a rockstar (talk about influence - that targets teens, not adults).
But that's more of a sad example of a loss of ethics in our society, than a plausible argument for censorship.
- kk
poster:krazy kat
thread:5764
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020510/msgs/5814.html