Should art ever be banned or censored,if its content and/or effects on audiences are deemed seriously offensive or harmful?
Begin by exploring the arguments for banning or censoring art.One place to start would be Plato's argument in The Republic,but you are not limited to this perspective.
You should consider what kinds of effects art would produce on people that could plausibly,or not plausibly,be construed as offensive or harmful.
Why would these serious effects require that "bad" art to be censored or banned?
After exploring this viewpoint,develop a counterargument against banning and censorship.This argument should address the issue of whether even obviously offensive and harmful art should be permitted and why?
That is,what makes the production,display,appreciation,etc.of "bad" art permissible,despite its being bad?
Throughout,be sure to focus on specific forms of art,such as paintings,plays,movies,music,etc.

Question

Should art ever be banned or censored,if its content and/or effects on audiences are deemed seriously offensive or harmful?
Begin by exploring the arguments for banning or censoring art.One place to start would be Plato's argument in The Republic,but you are not limited to this perspective.
You should consider what kinds of effects art would produce on people that could plausibly,or not plausibly,be construed as offensive or harmful.
Why would these serious effects require that "bad" art to be censored or banned? 
After exploring this viewpoint,develop a counterargument against banning and censorship.This argument should address the issue of whether even obviously offensive and harmful art should be permitted and why?
That is,what makes the production,display,appreciation,etc.of "bad" art permissible,despite its being bad?
Throughout,be sure to focus on specific forms of art,such as paintings,plays,movies,music,etc.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of Should art ever be banned or censored,if its content and/or effects on audiences are deemed seriously offensive or harmful?
Begin by exploring the arguments for banning or censoring art.One place to start would be Plato's argument in The Republic,but you are not limited to this perspective.
You should consider what kinds of effects art would produce on people that could plausibly,or not plausibly,be construed as offensive or harmful.
Why would these serious effects require that "bad" art to be censored or banned? 
After exploring this viewpoint,develop a counterargument against banning and censorship.This argument should address the issue of whether even obviously offensive and harmful art should be permitted and why?
That is,what makes the production,display,appreciation,etc.of "bad" art permissible,despite its being bad?
Throughout,be sure to focus on specific forms of art,such as paintings,plays,movies,music,etc.

Should Art Ever Be Banned or Censored,if Its Content And/or