My previous list was probably very different than the reading people did in the middle ages and renaissance. Most people probably did not have the luxury of reading for pleasure, and few were probably lucky enough to be reading for educational purposes. Those that were may have been more grateful and dedicated to reading educational materials than I. Generally, I think religious literature was probably prominent for those that were literate...there were probably not many reading materials that were approved of, other than religious texts and maybe some scholarly readings, but I doubt the church overly approved of frivolous, or fun, reading materials.
I think censorship plays a limited role in maintaining the morals of society. I don't think that society's morals are entirely determined by its media...people are not purely a product of their environment. However, I think it does play a certain part. Having more religious, conservative media available may encourage slightly more wholesome, religious behavior among those exposed to it... I am certain that violent, graphic, and sexual media has a negative effect on thought patterns and behavior for those exposed, even if the effect is slight and unintentional. So, perhaps media could be manipulated to encourage a population to align on one side or the other. I think censoring media in certain contexts could produce a better outcome for society, but I still think some people are just crappy people, and they are going to be crappy people even if they watch the itsy bitsy spider all day long. But you can bet I will censor the media my kids are exposed to-- I've seen and done research in this area, and I know for a fact that graphic and violent media is desensitizing, and affects mirror neurons to establish behavioral patterns, even if the child never actually commits that act--it just makes it that much more likely that they will have thought and behavioral patterns with similar threads.
