Censorship: The Difference between Protection and Surpression
Censorship has always been a sore spot for Western governments. Entrusted with a duty to protect it's citizens from attack, while also needing to conform to the tenant of press freedom. Freedom of Speech is perhaps the defining freedom of western democracy, and even monarchy as seen in the protection offered by and to the British in previous centuries.
There have been recent examples of the seemingly conflicting ideas of freedom of speech and right to privacy or to not have libelous information disseminated about yourself, a group you belong to or a belief that you have. One close to home was the recent Irish Blasphemy Law.
This brings me to my chief concern about censorship. There is a movement today to afford protection from criticism. While an attack on atheism on it's central beliefs, or more correctly non-beliefs (You only believe in one more god than I do, while also dismissing, with me, the rest of them.) would not be greeted by the same protests that would accompany an attack on Christianity (or any religion) by an atheist.
Censorship should never be used to insulate a person or population from the threat of new ideas, or of challenging old ideas. That is what these blasphemy laws are. Libel is different, in that attempts to stop the spread of false information. Blasphemy, since it only relates to theology and religion, is the challenging of unprovable ideas. Since they are unprovable, they can neither be proved right or wrong. There should be no protection for religion.
Freedom of religion, belief and thought are different from having those same things protected from attack. It only protects the individual from attack because they hold those beliefs.
Censorship is also used to stop true debate, about history, a nation or a belief. Take, for example, the oft debated Armenian Genocide. There were Turkish Laws in place to prosecute those that talked of the Genocide. There are still people on this board that think that it did not happen, or that it can be 'excused'. While I do not want this to spiral into a debate about the Genocide, I will point out that it did happen, it was Genocide, and Genocide is wrong. I am merely using it as an example.
There are now new rules which make it punishable to show pictures of genocide. This is censorship, possibly at it's worst. I do not support the right of people to not be offended. People's beliefs, including my own, should be examined and then they should be challenged. This is inherently offensive, but protecting me or any other person from this would stunt their academic growth, and would be a far worse offense. That is why I am opposed to these new rules. While I will not break them for the sake of breaking them, I will not shy away from breaking them to highlight where a person is wrong, and try to educate and convince them of the truth. Be it from a denier of the Armenian Genocide or a supporter of female genital mutilation, I will use, with suitable 'warning' images which may offend.
Fundamentally, I believe that the right to learn and teach comes before the right to not be offended, indeed I do not believe that there is or should be any such right. The way a government protects it's people is not be shutting them away from new ideas, but to educate them, so that they can also look at and critically examine those and different ideas. That a government, including the one at TWC (it is a government in the sense that it governs this site), should stop it's citizens and members from learning and being educated is a far greater crime than having some people's sensibilities and qualms broken.
That is why censorship, except in libelous cases, will also be damaging and harmful to a people, and I have no doubt that it will, in the end, bring down the quality of debate on these forums. It is a bad and bold step to take, and I am sorry that people would ever think such measures are justified.
Though this thread deals mainly with the idea of censorship, and that it harms rather than protects the people, I do realise that some specific examples I used will be debated and commented on. While I support your right to do so, as reading my opening will make clear, this will usually be not the place to do it. I do, however, welcome comments about the recent policy shift of the site, and will respond to them. I will not talk about the Irish Blasphemy Laws or the Armenian Genocide, not in this thread at least. I would appreciate it then if comments were kept on topic, pertaining to that about censorship in the abstract, as well as the possible consequences of it, using TWC as a ready and easy example.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Junius
