Censorship and the nanny state

[squatlover]

What are people's position on censorship and the freedom of information? Should we be able to decide for ourselves and evaluate what is good and bad, and make judgements, or should the state make decisions for us?
Should we be able to produce material that might be inflammatory, provocative, ethically dubious just because we can to further discussion, or should we consider that some people would not be able to process information and be corrupted by it?
For instance, racist and hateful material - this is currently illegal, but why aren't people allowed to express their views - people can choose to ignore it, argue against it, and thus have freedom from a material that is not in itself directly destructive to people, or should the government consider that the material is too harmful, and people should be protected against it, and not be exposed to it.

My line of thought is in the former, that we should be able to listen and see the viewpoint of other people, even if it seems wrong. Thus racist material would not be censored. The advantage of this would be that people would have the opportunity to understand why it is bad and form a rational judgement upon it, as opposed to having it decided that they can't form a judgement.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

there is no debate here - only morons believe in censorship.

there is nobody on this forum who believes in it.

and racism isn't illegal here. Only threats of harm are.

[Jingles]

Moron, reporting in. I'm cool with censorship, under the right circumstances.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Moron, reporting in. I'm cool with censorship, under the right circumstances.

who decides what the right circumstances are, Comrade Commissar?

There's a line between reckless speech and free speech.

what is reckless speech exactly?

[Jingles]

who decides what the right circumstances are, Comrade Commissar?

The Politburo of course.

Duh!

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The Politburo of course.

Duh!

Reminds me of yet another line by Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov. He said that interviews with high CPSU officials by Western magazines were useless and merely a rehearsal of state propaganda, ironically remarking: "all these magazines keep asking him what he thinks. Well, that's a silly question. He thinks what Comrade Adropov tells him to think."

[Claudius Gothicus]

what is reckless speech exactly?

To cry fire in a crowded theater, to incite a hooked up/huger ridden crowd in front of a bakery store into killing bakers. etc.

It's mostly contextual.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

To cry fire in a crowded theater, to incite a crowd in front of a bakery store into killing bakers. etc.

It's mostly contextual.

basically "speech that could cause intentional phyisical harm to another party"?

[Claudius Gothicus]

basically "speech that could cause intentional phyisical harm to another party"?

That ''could cause'' and actually causes harm, the intentionality behind the situation should be evaluated in a court of course.

[Corvis]

Really, the only kind of "censorship" I find justified is not allowing intentionally provocative people or ideas in appropriate settings... Like that guy dressed up in full KKK dress garb to hang outside of a black couple's wedding. That's not cool. I think it's too broad a subject to just feel absolute about total freedom of expression or otherwise. It should be approached on individual cases.

[Manco]

Really, the only kind of "censorship" I find justified is not allowing intentionally provocative people or ideas in appropriate settings... Like that guy dressed up in full KKK dress garb to hang outside of a black couple's wedding. That's not cool. I think it's too broad a subject to just feel absolute about total freedom of expression or otherwise. It should be approached on individual cases.

That would fall under disturbing the peace or similar laws.
No need for censorship.

[Corvis]

That would fall under disturbing the peace or similar laws.
No need for censorship.

Huh, I guess so. But wouldn't those just be sub-types of censorship?

[Manco]

Huh, I guess so. But wouldn't those just be sub-types of censorship?

Censorship is preventive; disturbing the peace, criminal harassment and so on are reactive.
The former already assumes you're in the wrong before you've done it, which is hardly fair.

[Emperador Carlos]

Really, the only kind of "censorship" I find justified is not allowing intentionally provocative people or ideas in appropriate settings... Like that guy dressed up in full KKK dress garb to hang outside of a black couple's wedding. That's not cool. I think it's too broad a subject to just feel absolute about total freedom of expression or otherwise. It should be approached on individual cases.

I've got no Problem with that KKK guy. I hate his guts, but it's his right.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

EDIT: Assuming he's not breaking any laws or infringing on the African American couple's rights. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example, would certainly not be protected.

[squatlover]

I've got no Problem with that KKK guy. I hate his guts, but it's his right.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

EDIT: Assuming he's not breaking any laws or infringing on the African American couple's rights. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example, would certainly not be protected.

Those are different matters to shout fire in a crowded theatre - I don't think thats a matter for censorship, nor do I think its particularly 'wrong' its just stupid. Do you think it should be against the law? Would it be ok for the KKK guy to write websites that the African -American couple should not be married because of their race? Would it be ok to write on pamphlets and websites that the theater should be set on fire? Or is that out of order and should be censored? My personal thought is that people should be able to write what they like, say what they like - if anyone carries through the act of physically trying to prevent the marriage or trying to set fire to the theatre that should be punished.

Some people argue against this, because what if there was a KKK guy that was writing all these racist pamphlets, putting up a lot of racist propaganda, telling people that they should hate blacks, and encouraging people to go and do this? And what if someone actually attack someone and blames the original KKK guy that was putting up the propaganda? Should the KKK guy be culpable for any of it, or should it be the gullible individual that takes the blame?

This is the reasoning for censorship - would people like to defend freedom of speech?

Just for the record, I am against censorship totally. It is up to non KKK people to put up a challenge to argue and convince gullible individuals not to follow the wrong path. Goverments that simply censor freedom of speech are failing to educate their populace, or are failing to instill a moral path for its citizens.

[Tacitursa]

If everyone just said whatever they wanted it would be mayhem, Especially when it comes to racism and other forms of hate. Alot of people would get stabbed , shot and beaten.

I do think some forms of censorship are pathetic, But any censorship that helps maintain peace and order is a good thing and should stay.

Everyone is allowed to voice their view no matter how immoral they may be, they're just words.

One of the main causes of murder is people having arguements. "They're just words" isnt really an arguement. If people were allowed to say whatever they wanted to me, It wouldnt be long before i started knocking them out one by one

[Blaze86420]

If everyone just said whatever they wanted it would be mayhem, Especially when it comes to racism and other forms of hate. Alot of people would get stabbed , shot and beaten.

[squatlover]

One of the main causes of murder is people having arguements. "They're just words" isnt really an arguement. If people were allowed to say whatever they wanted to me, It wouldnt be long before i started knocking them out one by one

That's your fault that you knocking people out for saying things - so you agree that people should not be able to say certain things? And just who gets to decide what should be allowed to be said and what isn't allowed?

[Denny Crane!]

there is no debate here - only morons believe in censorship.

there is nobody on this forum who believes in it.

and racism isn't illegal here. Only threats of harm are.

This is absolutely hilarious and perhaps your most ridiculous comment to date.

Do you even get that we have chinese nationals who post on here, where censorship is a reality. Is an entire nation or a group of nations up to and including Turkey a bunch of morons.

Furthermore you are someone who clearly doesn't read anything beyond a comic strip, otherwise me saying South Africa would be enough. Iran is another, and I could keep going on and on and on.

Get over yourself. Even in any liberal western country censorship exists if for no other reason than to limit paedophilia pornography.

I eagerly await your reply telling me just how moronic I am...

Those are different matters to shout fire in a crowded theatre - I don't think thats a matter for censorship, nor do I think its particularly 'wrong' its just stupid. Do you think it should be against the law? Would it be ok for the KKK guy to write websites that the African -American couple should not be married because of their race? Would it be ok to write on pamphlets and websites that the theater should be set on fire? Or is that out of order and should be censored? My personal thought is that people should be able to write what they like, say what they like - if anyone carries through the act of physically trying to prevent the marriage or trying to set fire to the theatre that should be punished.

Some people argue against this, because what if there was a KKK guy that was writing all these racist pamphlets, putting up a lot of racist propaganda, telling people that they should hate blacks, and encouraging people to go and do this? And what if someone actually attack someone and blames the original KKK guy that was putting up the propaganda? Should the KKK guy be culpable for any of it, or should it be the gullible individual that takes the blame?

This is the reasoning for censorship - would people like to defend freedom of speech?

Just for the record, I am against censorship totally. It is up to non KKK people to put up a challenge to argue and convince gullible individuals not to follow the wrong path. Goverments that simply censor freedom of speech are failing to educate their populace, or are failing to instill a moral path for its citizens.

Banning that form of speech just drives it underground which is infinitely more dangerous. Racism is a product of state propagation as far as I am concerned. An artificial creation which will dissipate over time.

[Enemy of the State]

Do you even get that we have chinese nationals who post on here, where censorship is a reality. Is an entire nation or a group of nations up to and including Turkey a bunch of morons.

Surely you do not equate the state with society, Denny? It's not the people that censor these things.

I wouldn't call people who want censorship morons. They're a bit more sinister than that.