moral censorship and morale responsibility

From correspondence with user Chris the Dane

The states should not handicap with propagation of ideas and defend the citizens from casual receiving of the information - citizens should independently escape it. Differently, the people wishing to receive the information, will have difficulties in access, or absolutely will lose access. "Protection" - fraud and hidden censorship for the sake of the purposes of the censors. Now in all see propagation of various harmful ideas (for example, propagation of an anorexia), and provide against. A unique case - interests of the third persons.

Special "evil" - enforcing unity of self-censorship, conversations about "morale responsibility". The charge of the morale responsibility on the writer is the contempt to the consumer of the information and limitation of his freedoms.

The moralists have not proved utility of moral and this moral censorship for well-being of the people. Such moralists do not think of well-being of the person, and deny value of pleasure.

Owing to moral censorship, I do not receive some information, and I cannot transmit some information to other people. The information exchange is outraged, growth of volume therefore becomes slower, and it is necessary longer to wait for appearance of new idea. Between the information and "the matter" is communication essential: for example, ideas for creation new goods. The well-being of the person in general depends.

The law should be rational, but the people supervised by desires. The society should be broken up; the people should become the individualists. Then the acts of other people will be not interesting to the person, if they do not prevent him. Each person can have own spirituality. The shame will not be existed, because other people are ignored; shame is social feeling.

Rational vs sensual, laws vs moral
Pleasures and moral