It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: JoshuaCox
Would this even be a discussion if Islamic terrorism and oppression were not an everyday occurrence?
Serious question.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: JoshuaCox
Technically, wouldn't all of those books be treated as "fiction"? So if we're going to start censoring fiction books because of any violence in them, where do we stop? After all, this is a country where horror movies, murder mysteries, and even "hardcore" music can include large amounts of murder and violence. Even comic books and superhero movies include large amounts of violence and murders against "bad guys". Why would they be exempt from this censorship?
Then there are the nonfiction accounts of murder, violence, and radicalism that would need to be accounted for, like accounts of the Unabomber, accounts of war heroes, etc. You can read or watch accounts of famous military snipers right now and surely some readers will be influenced by their stories. So where would the censorship end?
Now if we are saying they are fiction, the. I absolutely agree.
originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: JoshuaCox
Would this even be a discussion if Islamic terrorism and oppression were not an everyday occurrence?
Serious question.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: JoshuaCox
Now if we are saying they are fiction, the. I absolutely agree.
Who's "we"? As in, who's deciding what is and isn't fiction in your hypothetical situation? The govt or some independent organization? After all, there are people who still believe Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and ghosts are real. And their are people who act out the things they see in violent movies and video games too. So who decides where the line is?