Censorship has been dealt with in the Christchurch thread and elsewhere, but I think the impending legislation is worth a thread of its own. 

I have always been utterly opposed to all forms of censorship as a matter of principle. I was not actually opposed to censorship as such, just censorship imposed by others. I believe in self-censorship. There are things so disgusting and depraved, such as beheading videos, that I simply refuse to go near them, whether they are censored or not. I have certain moral standards that I try to live by. I believe in personal responsibility.

It was only after the Christchurch shootings that I changed my mind about censorship. Some people are so mentally weak and morally damaged that they cannot be relied on to exercise proper judgement and self-restraint. They feed on evil and they need to be barred from it. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why anyone should need to be able to see people at prayer being massacred in cold blood. I am entirely in favour of censoring that kind of extremist excrement.

At the same time, I am genuinely disturbed at giving this kind of discretionary power to any government agency or other official body. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How can censorship of the worst kind of content be achieved without giving too much away? Is the proposed legislation the way to go? I don’t have an answer and that is why I decided to start this thread.