BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Censorship is tailored to the power of the medium. Accordingly there is a higher level of censorshi...

Censorship is tailored to the power of the medium. Accordingly there is a higher level of censorship attached to television, films and video than to newspapers and books. this is because we recognise that moving pictures and sound are more graphic and powerful then text and photographs or illustrations. There is also normally more regulation of videos than cinema films because the viewer of a video is a captive audience with the power to rewind, view again and distribute more widely. The internet, which has become a huge repository of video and sound (for example, the speeches from hiding of Osama Bin Laden) should be attached the same level of power and regulated accordingly.
That it is hard to censor the internet does not mean we should not seek to do so, it is extremely d...

That it is hard to censor the internet does not mean we should not seek to do so, it is extremely difficult already to prevent the sale of snuff movies or hard core pornography but governments do so because it is deemed to be of societal importance. A more relevant difficulty is the anonymity provided by the internet which gives pornographers and criminals the opportunity to abuse the medium. But work by regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China have shown that it is possible to exercise considerable control over the internet and its users. Other Asian countries have experimented with requiring citizens to provide identification before posting content on to the internet, such a system if universally adopted could be a relatively simple way of enforcing laws against truly offensive and harmful content.
In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material w...

In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material which incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can not be traced or are insolvent the printers can be sued or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively small number of internet service providers (ISPs) should be made liable if they assist in the provision of dangerous and harmful information such as bomb making instructions, hard core pornography etc.
The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred...

The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred etc. are all international problems. If a global solution is required then it can be achieved by international co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed above it is possible to limit that harm.
Despite the generally prevailing principle of freedom of speech in democratic countries, it is widel...

Censorship is generally an evil and should be avoided where ever possible. Child pornography is an extreme example and there is already sufficient legislation to deal with those who attempt to produce, distribute or view such material. Other forms of speech may well be truly offensive but the only way a society can deal with them is by being exposed to them and combating them. Otherwise these groups are driven underground and become martyrs.
Censorship is tailored to the power of the medium. Accordingly there is a higher level of censorshi...

The distinction between censorship of the print and broadcast media is becoming increasingly irrelevant. It is quite possible that in ten years time people will be entirely reliant upon the internet for news and entertainment. The reason why the print media is comparatively unregulated is because we recognise that this is the primary means of distributing information in society. For this reason the internet must be allowed the same protection When Mill and the founding fathers of the US constitution spoke of the freedom of the press they were concerned about the primary and most powerful organ of the media at that time, the print press. Nowadays they would more likely be concerned with preventing censorship of the broadcast media and the internet which are our prime means of distributing information.
That it is hard to censor the internet does not mean we should not seek to do so, it is extremely d...

Even allowing for the extreme problems surrounding freedom of speech, internet censorship would be more or less impossible. Governments can attempt to regulate what is produced in their own country but it would be impossible to regulate material from abroad. What is the point in the USA removing all domestic reference to hardcore pornography when it is possible to access material from the United Kingdom or Sweden? It is also possible for citizens to produce material and store it in an overseas domain further complicating the issue. True freedom of speech requires anonymity in some cases to protect the author, the governments who have introduced ID requirements for internet use also deny many basic rights to their citizens. The internet allows citizens to criticise their government and distribute news and information without reprisal from the state, such a system clearly could not survive with ID requirements.
In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material w...

Internet Service Providers are certainly the wrong people to decide what can and can not be placed on the internet. There is already far too much control of this new technology by big business without also making them judge and jury of all internet content. In any case the sheer bulk of information ISPs allow to be published is such that vetting would be more or less impossible - are phone companies held responsible for abusive calls made over their networks? Were there liability for allowing such material to be displayed ISPs would inevitably err on the side of caution to protect their financial interests which would result in a much more heavily censored internet.
The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred...

Many ISPs have shown themselves to be responsible in immediately removing truly offensive content where they have been alerted to it. What is required is self regulation by the industry recognising their responsibility to internet users but not imposing arbitrary and draconian restrictions upon its use. It is already possible for parents to use 'Net nanny' browsers that will edit out offensive and inappropriate material for younger users.
Young people wear them with pride

The breach rate does not necessarily mean individuals do not fear them or see them as a badge of honour, although in some cases this is true. However the media emphasise these cases and assume what is true for some individuals must be true of other similar minded individuals. Research conducted by Wain[[The ASBO, Wrong turning dead end]] suggests that most people do not wear them with pride with 62% feeling that publicity had a negative impact. Others highlighting that while friends may see their ASBO as cool or a mark of respect, they did not see it that way.
Young people wear them with pride

In the lower classes, having an ASBO has become a symbol of pride. Many youths will openly talk about their ASBOs and in turn, people do not fear ASBOs. Once you take the fear out of the measure, there is no effectiveness in it. In fact the opposite has occurred with youngsters, they would be pleased to obtain an ASBO. It is a symbol of them not cohering with the rules and effectively getting away with it. In December 2007 it was found that 61% of people who had ASBOs breached them [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/28/asbo-theresa-may-crime-policy]]
They were combined with parenting orders

While this argument applies to the use of some ASBOs it is not true of all. It can't be claimed that because in some instances these orders are used together with a parenting order that you cannot consider the two orders independently. When an ASBO is breached by someone under the age of 16 then a Parenting Order must be made. In 2005 60% of ASBOs were given to people over the age of 18[[ASBO Nation: The criminalisation of nuisance]] therefore there are many cases where this does not happen. ASBOs were not originally introduced to be focused on under 18s, but noisy neighbours and disorder while under the influence of drugs and alcohol which was becoming a problem for some communities[[Newburn T, Criminology]]. The Government refused to publicise a lot of information which has been called for on the utility of ASBOs. One of these calls has been for the data on other interventions used alongside ASBOs, therefore it is difficult to accuse arguments of being misleading when the Government itself has not published figures.
They were combined with parenting orders

People are looking upon the ASBOs as if it was the only measure that Labour introduced, but this is a misrepresentation. ASBOs were set up as a civil order imposed by the Government to stop youths hanging around in certain areas and to give them curfews. In addition to this, the youngsters’ parents were given a parenting order which made them attend parenting lessons in order to solve the root of the problem regarding yobbish behaviour. Of course the ASBO would not work on its own, but it was not introduced on its own and therefore should not be judged on this basis.
They worked alongside the Respect Progrmme Blair introduced

They were never intended to be administered against only the young and weren't. This is a common misrepresentation made by the media focusing on the 'youth' problem. In reality there was more of a shift towards youths getting ASBOs.[[Asbos, "Preventative orders" and the European Court of Human Rights']] Furthermore, their increase in uptake can not be considered as a result of the Respect programme. During this time the Government had increased the bodies that could apply for ASBOs and also created the CrASBO. The latter can be seen as the biggest reason for the sour in numbers. As well as this the government pushed local authorities to increase their uptake[[Newburn T, Criminology]] and David Blunkett suggested those that didn't should be sacked. The fact that they were administered a lot did not mean that they were effective. When the National Audit Office reviewed the procedure they found that orders were being placed against ridiculous forms of behaviour. Such things as wearing gloves on one hand and an 87 year old even was administered one for shouting at neighbours. More worryingly, the mentally ill were also found to be having these ASBOs placed against them. How can this be said to be effective in accordance with respect?
They worked alongside the Respect Progrmme Blair introduced

ASBOs were initially unpopular and were rarely administered. For the first two years only 300-400 were given out by the police. However, when the Respect programme kicked in, the police and councils began to see the point of ASBOs, to curb anti social behaviour in order to make Britain more conclusive and cohesive. The numbers soared from 427 in 2002 to 3,479 in 2004 and reached a peak of 4,122 new orders issued in 2005. [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/28/asbo-theresa-may-crime-policy]] These orders were then being administered against not only the young but against anyone committing any sort of behaviour that was causing anxiety in society and could potentially lead to crime; either by the person themselves or by that person facing reprisals for their anti social behaviour.
Criminalises Behaviour & Individuals

It is a civil order, but if one condition or more is breached then the recipient faces a criminal penalty. This creates a situation of net widening in the criminal justice system when individuals could be dealt with in a different, less punitive, manner. As a result many feel that applications for an ASBO should always be treated as criminal.[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3906843.stm]]
Expensive

However, with economic hardship comes higher likelihood of petty crime. It is for this reason that those in the lower classes are more likely to commit crime than those in higher classes. This effect is heightened in the aftermath of a recession. As people feel less and less willing to pay and put the blame on society, they are more likely to steal. This can be thought of as especially true with teenagers who are likely to receive ASBOs. It is cost effective in as much as it is less expensive than prison and is ultimately less expensive to society than ignoring the criminality.
Expensive

Considering the lack of evidence conducted into the effectiveness of ASBOs it is difficult to suggest that they are cost effective. Studies suggest that it costs around £2500 to obtain an ASBO[[http://www.nacro.org.uk/criminal-justice-expertise/policy-lines/antisocial-behaviour-orders-asbos,92,NAP.html]] which rises dramatically should the ASBO be breached. In times of economic hardship it is important to stick to proven cost effective measures.
Wide Ranging Conditions

Prohibitory conditions can be incredibly wide ranging and inhibit the recipient greatly in their day to day life. Individuals can be banned from places and other individuals, even though the area they are banned from may be on their route to school or to town[[http://www.nacro.org.uk/criminal-justice-expertise/policy-lines/antisocial-behaviour-orders-asbos,92,NAP.html]]. ASBOs would be more effective if conditions were considered more to ensure they were appropriate and necessary. It is not about being more lenient but improving ASBOs and there absurdly high breach rate caused in some part by unnecessary conditions. For instance, one person was banned from being in a large group. As part of his 'rehabilitation' he went to a youth group and was therefore in breach of this ASBO.
Religion is a very powerful thing. Of course, it is everyone’s right to believe in what they will. T...

Religion is a very powerful thing. Of course, it is everyone’s right to believe in what they will. The state should not prescribe what people should believe. However, this is a separate question to what a state should do regarding the education of its children. If a state is aiming at the most united community it can possibly get, then some things should be common to everyone. The obvious candidate for commonality is education; a population that has gone through the same education system shares a common set of knowledge and values that can only be beneficial to social cohesion.
The state has no responsibility to subsidise any religion’s involvement in a school environment. Chi...

The state has no responsibility to subsidise any religion’s involvement in a school environment. Children can get instruction in it at home and in places of worship and can enjoy the “community spirit” outside school hours. Any spirit of community that defines the community along exclusive lines (i.e. the membership of a religion) actually excludes from this community spirit those pupils whom are not believers in the faith of the school.
To claim that faith schools correct bad explication of doctrine is insulting to parents and religiou...

To claim that faith schools correct bad explication of doctrine is insulting to parents and religious leaders. It also raises serious issues about the role of teachers in prescribing a certain ethos and certain beliefs about the world. Is it appropriate for a teacher, in such a position of power when he or she dispenses objective knowledge to children, to abuse that position by teaching something subjective as if it were as uncontested as mathematics? This is a general argument against any prescriptive “citizenship” teaching in schools, but has specific force as an objection against religious involvement in setting the tone and content of a school’s world out-look. If some form of moral prescription is unavoidable in schools it should be the most generally applicable prescription possible. Different religions, by their very natures, are specific groups within society and as such it is inappropriate to give them exclusive influence in a learning environment.
By segregating children on the grounds of religions you polarise communities and alienate them from ...

By segregating children on the grounds of religions you polarise communities and alienate them from the youth of other faiths. This is socially destructive. Moreover, the influence of one religion in the ethos of that school skews the perception of children towards viewing that religion as superior to others. This can undermine a child’s education in other religions and what they believe. In effect, you are teaching an understanding of all other religions through the medium of an ethos of one particular religion.
answer to yes point posted twice "Science can produce...

Quantitative vs Qualitative. Science can help measure quantity but not quality, this applies to the quantity of joy as well. Science cannot tell people whether to prefer quality over quantity or vice versa. Ultimately as Max Weber noted: Value freedom can never be achieved. Science is not a perfect/exact science. Different scientists will/do come from different schools of thought and present theories that contradict each other. In fact Karl Popper made it so that no rule can be accepted without the provision of exceptions. Introducing science into morality will further complicate an already complex belief system that is supposedly accessible to the masses. Morality is a personal thing, different people have different perceptions of morality no scientific dictum can alter that. [[nadia]]
Problems with the definitions of morality used.

We don't need a set of general moral values.Except when it comes to th law. In which case, the legal system should be scientifically reevaluated and revamped. However, certain sets of morals are only relevant on a personal level and should only be regulated and determined by individuals themselves. Situations/contexts are all-important when it comes to making crucial/critical moral decisions. The outcomes of more decisions are unknown and split second decisions rely primarily on your gut/conscience. [[nadia]]
Science shouldn't be prescribing what we do.

[[http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris/]'Positive]] Then what should prescribe what we do? human beings are impressionable social animals, we organize ourselves in herds and packs hen allow ourselves to be lead. Crowd behavior patterns are remarkably predictable. It is because we are predictable and easy to dictate(either openly or covertly, in the end; most of what we think and do was inculcated and assimilated into us by external sources and in a forever symbiotic setting. It is better that we ruled by generally understand and accepted science rather than the drone of influential self-interested individuals(mostly celebrities) who lead us astray from a fulfilling lifetime. [[nadia]]
Science is too tied in with corporations.

corporations already dictate our lifestyles and beliefs (consumerism, advertising, social media...) Allowing corporations to defend and monitor their critical and all-influencing rhetoric with scientific calculations of benefit to the exposed planet, will help us all. Scientifically determining what to and what not to advertise for the benefit of all human beings, will be better than deciding what to advertise on the basis of tastes, wants and primarily boosting sales. Also data will be much more transparent and accurate if it is accessible to all(as perceptions of morality are. [[nadia]]
Problems with the definitions of morality used.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris/ 'If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly are—then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.' Happiness doesn't necessarily equal morality. While happiness is a good gauge of morality – a society where people don't murder or rape each other and children are well treated would be one where people were happier – it doesn't follow that morality is happiness. A society where everyone abstains from immediate happiness and comfort because they are all sacrificing their worldly happiness for physical and mental improvement, so that they can be the best that they can be, or because they are all voluntarily expiating their sins so they will be reincarnated as something better, wouldn't be a morally bad society. [http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris/]'Positive social emotions like compassion and empathy are generally good for us, and we want to encourage them. But do we know how to most reliably raise children to care about the suffering of other people? I’m not sure we do. Are there genes that make certain people more compassionate than others? What social systems and institutions could maximize our sense of connectedness to the rest of humanity?'[/quote] Community spirit and empathy with others doesn't equal morality either. If everyone empathised with everyone, there would be no complete innocents. Innocents play a great role in the spiritual welfare of communities. It could also destroy happiness, as we are worn down by always knowing the tragedies of others around the word. Forcing community spirit on others would be unethical if that person wants to be apart from the community because they are a natural loner and are avoiding a great stress, want to be reclusive so they can meditate, or just want to revise for their exams in peace.
Science shouldn't be prescribing what we do.

Morality is by definition the law of what we, as people, should do. Other aspects of science are purely descriptive, not prescriptive – they may tell us what will and won't work if we try and build a machine or treat a patient but it doesn't tell us whether or not we should build the machine or treat the patient. There is no way that science can create moral laws without becoming a moral authority, and therefore directly dictating what we do. This will make it very difficult for science to be impartial in any other areas. If it was decided scientifically whether we should treat patients or not, could science be impartial enough to be trusted to produce new medicines and ways to treat patients?
Science is too tied in with corporations.

Scientific institutions are largely sponsored by drugs corporations, Government or military bodies that do not have the world's moral interests at heart. There are already incidents of cures for cancer not being researched further because another corporation has already patented it so you can't make money from it – this isn't the same corporation that you want making your moral decisions. A project such as the 'morality drug' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/04/morality-drugs-improve-ethical-behaviour) sounds repulsive to us, among other reasons, because it is so easy to get into the hands of a corporation or Government that wants a nation of addicts who are easy to control.