Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
In theory would censorship aid the economic situation?
What if news organizations weren't allowed make a massive story out of everything and the amount of continuous bad news was lessened. Would this help ease the worries of investors and possibly calm the situation?
It wouldn't have to be permanent but just until things have improved a bit. Its obviously more complicated than that but would it have any effect?
@Pray.. I know what you saying but wouldn't... less bad news=more investor confidence=more stable situation. I'm not talking about total censorship but just limiting the pointless stuff that out there.
- Favorite Answer
In theory? you ask. In practice censorship is incorporated already and ever into the very mindset of those who have charge of administering information. Thus whatsoever theory exists about censorship has long been applied already and made active. Only, it all ensues below the proletariat's radar. For were that not so, we would have been long ago accorded a different presumption, and would avail now much more open imports of information than has hitherto constituted the norms of what we hear and see today in both the media and intelligence establishments nationwide.
Of course, censorship is colored by those same authorities who have for five centuries wielded the tenor of communications, in particular since what is now the United States first became the original colonies in the latter 18th Century. What constitutes requiring censoring and what does not was at first got-up by and revolved around a certain sensibility; one and one only -- that of Anglo-Saxon-Protestant sensibility.
For instance, let us take one graphic aspect pronounce in the social fabric everywhere, which one learns when a child. This whole thing that is "political correctness" was and is a construction fabricated by this selfsame sensibility in which what is or was thought "proper" to discuss and what is or was not, is in all its implications an Anglo-Saxon take on things generally; no matter what one's race or culture is. Such is a censoring tool outright, which deceptively endeavors to ' ridicule' and thus vilify not those who are the people who do the ridiculing but rather those who are the objects of the ridicule.
Such is a form of censorship intended not to allow anyone who in all human decency is due redress. And if anyone should undertake to get redress, then he or she is at once marginalized and diminished in importance and made to cease and desist his or her notions. Thus the silent words and body language that we intuitively learn when we are children are that unseen, unheard pall of seeming that over the course of time teaches us a "proper" decorum and comportment. In nations outside one's own, this differs markedly; thus does that nation's measure of censorship differ as well.
So you see, censorship, whether made formal and legal by some said law or not, is nonetheless a habit subject to occur then express itself based upon the respective dominant consensual reality, amid any conditions in which any controversy or "raw meat" subject is targeted to be put down. In the United States, such red alert expressions ensue for sure when arises unease having to do with race or ethnicity or culture. Political correctness is an arm and tool of censorship. Wherever one has and feels need to edit and audit his or her thoughts, which when and if otherwise expressed in word and action would be esteemed incorrect, he or she is typically relegated to a subject of censure.
Such is why so much often dogmatic debate ensues among journalists, attorneys, sociologists, and community advocates regarding the underpinnings of 1st Amendment precepts; this, to discern just what the founding fathers intended to mean in their conceiving and writing of the Bill of Rights.
The question might as well be, who is he or she that will determine what is pointless and what, in truth, bears great import, so much so as to warrant screening or allow disclosure? That is, just who is the he or she or consensus that will call the shots? Thus far, and for hundreds of years, this has been determined by a preciously narrow few, having somewhat the God-complex in the first place to even have presumed that what they deem important or not must always make the appeal first with them.
- s tLv 61 decade ago
No is the short and long answer. Furthermore there is no other answer.
Economic situations can not and should not be hidden. In order for the
free market to function propertly it should be free...and not controlled in any
shape and/or form. No two way about it.
- † PRAY †Lv 71 decade ago
Limiting our freedom is not going to do anything except make slaves out of us.
NO. it would not help anything.
- LadyBLv 71 decade ago
Not even close.
When we start censoring, we will cease to be America.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
not even in theory