[Censorship]: Censorship is not wrong in principle. [Absolute Freedom of Speech]: Freedom of speech is an absolute right. <Argument from Freedom of Speech>: Censorship is wrong in principle. In a free and civilized society, everyone must be free to express herself. #con (1) [Absolute Freedom of Speech] (2) Censorship violates freedom of speech. (3) Whatever violates an absolute right, is itself wrong in principle. -- Specification, Modus ponens {uses: [1,2,3]} -- (4) Censorship is wrong in principle. -> [Censorship] <No-Harm trumps Freedom-of-Speech>: Freedom of speech ceases to be a right when it causes harm to others. Therefore freedom of speech is never an absolute right but an aspiration. #pro (1) Sometimes, free speech causes serious harms to others. (2) Whatever causes serious harms to others is not permissible. (3) If freedom of speech is sometimes not permissible, then freedom of speech is not an absolute right. ---- (4) Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. -> [Absolute Freedom of Speech] <Argument from racial hatred>: Legislation against incitement to racial hatred is permissible. Thus, censorship is not wrong in principle. #pro (1) [IRC-legislation]: Legislation against incitement to racial hatred is permissible. (2) Legislation against incitement to racial hatred is a form of censorship. ---- (3) [Censorship] <Importance of inclusive public debate>: Legislation against incitement to racial hatred drives racists and others underground rather than drawing them into open and rational debate. #con (1) We will only have an open, maximally-inclusive and rational societal debate, if racists are not driven underground. (2) If legislation against incitement to racial hatred is enacted, racists and others are driven underground. ----- (3) We will only have an open, maximally-inclusive and rational societal debate, if legislation against incitement to racial hatred is not enacted. (4) We ought to have an open, maximally-inclusive and rational societal debate. ----- (5) Legislation against incitement to racial hatred ought not be enacted. -> [IRC-legislation] <Excessive sex and violence>: Excessive sex and violence in film and television contribute to a tendency towards similar behaviour in spectators. In these cases, censorship is obligatory. #pro (1) [Causal link]: Excessive sex and violence in film and television contributes to a tendency towards similar behaviour in spectators. (2) Whatever contributes to an tendency towards criminal behaviour may be legally banned, except more weighty reasons speak against doing so. (3) There are no substantial reasons against legally banning excessive sex and violence in film and television. ----- (4) Excessive sex and violence in film and television may be legally banned. (5) If excessive sex and violence in film and television may be legally banned, censorship is not wrong in principle. ----- (6) [Censorship] <Argument from expertise>: Scientific studies have established a causal link between violence in film and a similar behaviour in spectators. #pro (1) Scientific studies have established that excessive sex and violence in film and television contributes to a tendency towards similar behaviour in spectators (@ [Causal link] ). (2) If scientific studies have established that X and if there is no evidence against X being the case, then X. ---- (3) [Causal link] <Causal link questionable>: The link between sex and violence on screen and in real life is far from conclusive. The individual's personality make her watch violent videos, not vice versa. #con (1) The consumption of violent video is correlated with violent and criminal behaviour. (2) The best explanation for this correlation is that those individuals who _already have tendencies_ to violence are likely to watch violent `video nasties', just as those with a predilection for rape are likely to use pornography. -- Inference to the best explanation {uses: [1,2]} -- (3) A disposition for criminal behaviour causes the consumption of violent video. (4) Causal relations are asymmetric. ----- (5) The consumption of violent video does not bring about a disposition for criminal behaviour. -> [Causal link]