Harm
From Internet: Knowledge and Community
In Graham's conception of "harm" he makes the distinction between what is potentially harmful and what is directly harmful. In the example of pornography he says that in order to regulate pornography on the internet it must be shown that it is both intrinsically objectionable and that the chances of potential harm becoming an actuality are reasonably high. Graham later says that pornography should in fact be distinguished from "the harmful" because its effects can be rendered null and void by ignoring it. What Graham considers to be harmful then, are those things that pose a risk to people simply by their mere existence. Graham presents a couple problems with defining what is harmful. One problem is the question, "Is the fact that an action is harmful to others one condition that warrants its regulation or is it the only condition?" (125). Another consideration is that of moral ambiguity. "The root concern of morality lies not in the potential harm done to others, but in possible corruption of mind and character." (126).
