The latest anti-smoking campaign: Is censorship for a good cause OK?

[Milossarian]

There have been TV commercials running lately by an anti-smoking group, urging people to "Take Big Tobacco's Voice Away" by tearing out every cigarette ad they see in magazines.

While the narrator says, "Tear out every cigarette ad you see," they put print on the bottom of the TV ad stating something to the effect of, "Only do this with magazines that you own."

If you care enough about the issue to rip out a cigarette ad, why would you need to do it to one of your own magazines? Symbolism? I think they are being disingenuous. They actually hope people will do it to magazines in general, everywhere.

Is this a form of censorship? Is it all right because smoking is a bad thing?

Even though restricting the speech of advertising is a little different than other forms of speech, this still strikes me as out-and-out censorship. These people aren't just to reject the advertisement's message; they are to eliminate it.

Granted, if they're only doing this to their own magazines, who cares? But as I stated before; that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and I don't believe that is really the intent of the campaign.

I was going to post that I felt some forms of censorship are OK, if their intent is to lessen the promotion of racism, hatred and violence. What immediately sprang to mind are the restrictions in Germany on making references to Nazism.

But the more I think about it, I'm not so sure that even for that purpose censorship is justifiable. Who decides which thoughts are acceptable to express and which are not? Censoring the expression of the thought doesn't make the thought go away. The ideas will still be circulating less conspicuously. (That is absolutely the fact in Germany.)

What ever happened to the idea of the best way to combat ideas you don't like is to have them out there in the light of day for full scrutiny by all?

Would the German people really be swept away in fervent Nazism again if they heard this stuff? Or would making it all out in the open allow people to know who thinks what, and make them better able to react at a local, person-to-person level to the currently unseen, just-below-the-surface dangers that may be brewing.

I realize I may have gone off on two separate tangents here, but I think they are related. Is censorship ever OK? (And I'm not talking about shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.)

[Sterra]

First id say that thetruth.com is a joke not worth repeating.

In answer to the actual question censorship can be good but the problem with it is its too easy to go from one censorship to another when your already controlling the presses.

[Sweet_Lotus]

I think the point they are making is "Choose not to listen to what Big Tobacco is telling you about their product". Not "Stop the presses and keep Big Tobacco from getting their message out there." The first is a valid thing to do. The second, is real censorship.

[Milossarian]

I think the point they are making is "Choose not to listen to what Big Tobacco is telling you about their product". Not "Stop the presses and keep Big Tobacco from getting their message out there." The first is a valid thing to do. The second, is real censorship.

They're pretty explicit in the ads. They say, "tear out every tobacco ad you see in magazines." That's rather specific, and I disagree that they merely want people to reject the message.

Are you saying that they're telling the magazine owners themselves to ignore the message of the tobacco ads, Sweet_Lotus? If they're non-smokers and feel strongly enough about it to rip an ad out of a magazine, aren't they already ignoring the ad's message in the strongest terms?

[Typo Negative]

I too think the the campaign is intended to have people tear out the ads in other peoples magazines. I don't think the ads are promoting censorship, but they promoting vandalism. The tobacco companies will still get their message out.


And those who choose to rip ads out of other peoples magazines are sending a message too. The message is 'I'm intelligent enough to disregard this tripe, but I don't think you are.'

[jb_farley]

'I'm intelligent enough to disregard this tripe, but I don't think you are.'

the ironic thing is, that's how i feel about the people who would listen to that ad.

[Ptahlis]

Well, even though I hate censorship in principle, I'll answer the broader question of the OP in the affirmative. Yes, censorship does have valid uses, and the government does have a mandate to use it when necessary. There are laws against kiddie porn, and blatantly false advertising. Both of those are, IMHO, perfectly justified.

[IzzyR]

Ptahlis:

Yes, censorship does have valid uses, and the government does have a mandate to use it when necessary. There are laws against kiddie porn, and blatantly false advertising. Both of those are, IMHO, perfectly justified.

Presumably anyone censoring anything is doing it for what they believe is a good cause, or valid use, as you put it. What is do distinguish the valid uses that you've singled out from other uses that you would not have censorship for?

[Sweet_Lotus]

Originally posted by Milossarian
They're pretty explicit in the ads. They say, "tear out every tobacco ad you see in magazines." That's rather specific, and I disagree that they merely want people to reject the message.

I am taking the ad at its face value, including the fine print, because I believe that was the intention of the people who created the ads.
I think that the "tearing out" of the ads from "magazines you own" is a concrete expression of your choice not to listen to Big Tobacco. It's not a way of keeping the message from other people, it's supposed to be a symbolic act.