I wrote about the shooting in Christchurch. The New Zealand government has more or less banned the possession of the shooting video as well as the manifesto written by the shooter.
Is that the way to go?
I agree that spreading the video and the manifesto may expose more people to these ideas, which have no place in our society. But at the same time, it brings attention to them. This lends support to those warped ideas, but does not allow access to information which can be refuted to expose the fallacy of those ideas.
And if banning is the way to go, the New Zealand government may have to start banning all news coverage of Trump. Because his words spread hate along similar lines. They expose people to similar ideas.
Not giving an avenue to spread such ideas is one thing. But is banning the way to go?
Or is openness, and with it, the availability of information for people to learn, and criticize, a more balanced approach? Because in this day and age when information moves at the speed of light, unlike a time when people and ideas spreading dangerous ideas can be physically contained, any idea that has been launched into cyberspace can never be retracted back and contained.
Do we shut off people from things that we think may negatively impact them so as to protect them, like a protective parent?
Or do we expose them to the world even as we guide them along, for them to learn on their own with the support of the wisdom of others?
Is that the way to go?
I agree that spreading the video and the manifesto may expose more people to these ideas, which have no place in our society. But at the same time, it brings attention to them. This lends support to those warped ideas, but does not allow access to information which can be refuted to expose the fallacy of those ideas.
And if banning is the way to go, the New Zealand government may have to start banning all news coverage of Trump. Because his words spread hate along similar lines. They expose people to similar ideas.
Not giving an avenue to spread such ideas is one thing. But is banning the way to go?
Or is openness, and with it, the availability of information for people to learn, and criticize, a more balanced approach? Because in this day and age when information moves at the speed of light, unlike a time when people and ideas spreading dangerous ideas can be physically contained, any idea that has been launched into cyberspace can never be retracted back and contained.
Do we shut off people from things that we think may negatively impact them so as to protect them, like a protective parent?
Or do we expose them to the world even as we guide them along, for them to learn on their own with the support of the wisdom of others?