The debate "The censorship of data to protect those in power is immoral" was started by
April 1, 2019, 7:01 am.
49 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Emblazon posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument, Syrkk posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
tniromin, Nemiroff, castor, Emblazon, MYPHRONTISTERY, LucyTheDebatorQueen, saad786, lukeluckynuke123, bigbuttgal and 40 visitors agree.
himanshu, GreatDivider, Syrkk and 17 visitors disagree.
So we should be able to see his private photos?
and that applies to all *private* citizens.
leadership requires transparency and verifiable trust.
4th amendment allows us to have privacy
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. I probably could've been more clear
Morality is highly subjective. It also is highly dependent on the person's motivations. For example, if I killed a person in order to rob them, that is bad. If i killed a person in order to protect a small child they were trying to kill, now it is morally justified.
If the person censoring is doing it for a "justified" reason then you could argue it is moral.
I don't think moral or immoral are the correct ways to look at it.
I would say it depends on what those kept in power are doing with their power as to whether it was moral or not. Stalin, for example, obviously was doing immoral things. But, what if there was a benevolent dictator who killed a few people but made the lives of millions great and happy?
Stalin was a bad man that killed a lot of his own people and he remained in power by censoring the media and not telling them what he was. That is an example and exactly what this means.
Someone might say that not telling the population that there is a disease going around to stop panic is what this means but it isn't because that doesn't keep anyone in power.