Censorship in General [DEBATE]

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Opinions on Government Censorship, such as in the Media and Interent.

 

(My opinion is that it does violate freedom of speech, but for the good of the nation)

Edited December 10, 2014 by Francisco Franco

[iljohn]

Well If that's the case then all media in the news department would be shutdown for breaking this as well as the government cause it's been a very very long time since the media was not censored

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Well If that's the case then all media in the news department would be shutdown for breaking this as well as the government cause it's been a very very long time since the media was not censored

Not every media station is censored, but back to my point; it still violates the "freedom of speech" term. But, still up for partial censorship.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Francisco Franco

[Destroyer]

I too think Media and Internet should be censored, as they violate the freedom of speech and probably make these words more popular

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I too think Media and Internet should be censored, as they violate the freedom of speech and probably make these words more popular

I'm not for total censorship, but partial. But censoring the interent is actually violating freedom of speech.

[Dolphman]

The Government (I am assuming you are talking about USA) doesnt do much censoring. Due to our private sector dominance, most censoring is done by private corporations, for example I cannot say !@#$ here.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Dolphman

[Franz Von Dietrich]

The Government (I am assuming you are talking about USA) doesnt do much censoring. Due to our private sector dominance, most censoring is done by private corporations, for example I cannot say !@#$ here.

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say.

[Niklaus]

To paraphrase some quote I read and can't remember who said it - Our freedom ends where the freedom of others begins. If censorship is done to ensure that various communities/sections/groups of individuals can co-exist peacefully or with a view to protect the rights of a specific group, I am not against it as I find nothing wrong with it. Man lives in a society and to be very honest, the society would be complete chaos if everyone said what was on his/her mind. We don't deserve a society where we have complete freedom of speech because we are just not responsible enough.

 

So I support partial censorship as well.

 

Excessive censorship or arbitrary censorship is bad.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

To paraphrase some quote I read and can't remember who said it - Our freedom ends where the freedom of others begins. If censorship is done to ensure that various communities/sections/groups of individuals can co-exist peacefully or with a view to protect the rights of a specific group, I am not against it as I find nothing wrong with it. Man lives in a society and to be very honest, the society would be complete chaos if everyone said what was on his/her mind. We don't deserve a society where we have complete freedom of speech because we are just not responsible enough.

 

So I support partial censorship as well.

 

Excessive censorship or arbitrary censorship is bad.

Yes, you get the idea of partial censorship.

[Ashland]

Mm... no.  Not only does speech need to be protected, but it's the speech that offends people/pisses them off that needs to be protected the most.  Because nobody's going to try to stop someone from saying "Apple pie and moms are great!"  It's the ignorant, stupid, wrong, racist, offensive, horrible speech that needs the most protection even if 99.9% of people disagree with it and think it's !@#$.  Not just because of the principle of free speech, but what if one day 99.9% of people disagree with you and think you're wrong and that what you're saying is offensive.  I am not offended when people call me a derisive term for homosexuals, but even if I were I would defend their right to call me those things until my last breath. For my own sake.

 

And even if you think that the speech is dangerous, censoring it does two things that everyone can agree are bad.

 

A: It incentivizes people to commit worse crimes to cover their tracks.  Like how making death the punishment for theft in Renaissance England didn't decrease theft but increased murder.  

 

B: Everyone who doesn't speak out with their threatening/offensive/wrong beliefs won't be responded to with counter-speech disproving them.  So you not only censor the speech, you're also censoring any speech that would oppose it.

 

It also sets a dangerous precedent.  Basically, freedom of speech is the least important right because it's not really useful if you have no other rights that you should have.  That's because its greatest use is to protect your other rights.  So curbing any kind of speech is a dangerous game to play because it's setting a precedent of putting non-rights before not only rights, but the right you use to defend other rights.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Ashland

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Mm... no.  Not only does speech need to be protected, but it's the speech that offends people/pisses them off that needs to be protected the most.  Because nobody's going to try to stop someone from saying "Apple pie and moms are great!"  It's the ignorant, stupid, wrong, racist, offensive, horrible speech that needs the most protection even if 99.9% of people disagree with it and think it's !@#$.  Not just because of the principle of free speech, but what if one day 99.9% of people disagree with you and think you're wrong and that what you're saying is offensive.  I am not offended when people call me a derisive term for homosexuals, but even if I were I would defend their right to call me those things until my last breath. For my own sake.

 

And even if you think that the speech is dangerous, censoring it does two things that everyone can agree are bad.

 

A: It incentivizes people to commit worse crimes to cover their tracks.  Like how making death the punishment for theft in Renaissance England didn't decrease theft but increased murder.  

 

B: Everyone who doesn't speak out with their threatening/offensive/wrong beliefs won't be responded to with counter-speech disproving them.  So you not only censor the speech, you're also censoring any speech that would oppose it.

 

It also sets a dangerous precedent.  Basically, freedom of speech is the least important right because it's not really useful if you have no other rights that you should have.  That's because its greatest use is to protect your other rights.  So curbing any kind of speech is a dangerous game to play because it's setting a precedent of putting non-rights before not only rights, but the right you use to defend other rights.

Sometimes; you must break rights to protect the greater good.

[Fox Fire]

Censorship, is bullshit. That's all I have to say about that.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Censorship, is !@#$. That's all I have to say about that.

Partial Censorship is needed to protect the community and those who surround it.

[Grillick]

Partial Censorship is needed to protect the community and those who surround it.

From what?

[Franz Von Dietrich]

From what?

Harmful items, or political propaganda.

[Ashland]

Sometimes; you must break rights to protect the greater good.

Maybe?  The problem you run into there is who decides what the greater good is?  Basically, a right is a right and the absence of a right is the absence of a right.  A right is violable only where it conflicts with another, more important, right (The pecking order tends to be speech/intellectual ownership<property ownership<life/body/self ownership).  But if you say "for the greater good", well... that's not a right so it doesn't give us any clear instruction on how to behave or evaluate circumstances.  As it stands, we basically have a sort of Asimov's Rules for rights:

 

1: Freedom of speech will never be violated except where it infringes on another's freedom of speech/property/life. (e.g. slander is not allowed)

2: Freedom of property will never be violated excepted where it infringes on another's freedom of property/life (e.g. you aren't allowed to use force on someone unless you have good reason to believe your body/life are in danger, and even then you are supposed to match and not exceed their force if you can).

3: Freedom of life will never be violated except where it infringes on another's freedom of life.

4: When identical freedoms of two different people conflict, we will prefer to protect the freedom of the individual whose freedom is not being asserted against the other.  (e.g. in a case of self defense, if someone attacks me with their fists, I am technically infringing on their right to freedom of life/body by defending myself.  But my freedom is preferred because I am only using it A: To defend said freedom, so it draws power from itself and B: Because the situation was thrust upon me.  In this way society incentivizes people to NOT infringe on each others' rights by punishing those who instigate rights infringements disparately)

 

Your evaluation doesn't give us that.  So it's vague and we can't actually use it.  Tell me a scenario where free speech threatens "the greater good" that is not already covered here so I can better understand what you mean.  And to be clear, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater IS covered here.

 

EDIT: There are actually specific circumstances under which you are allowed to violate another's freedom of body to defend your freedom of property.  Again, it's an instance where YOU had to be minding your own business and THEY started screwing with you.  And it's society's way of disincentivizing destructive behavior.  And there are severe limitations.  You're not allowed to kill someone to defend property, for instance.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Ashland

[Fox Fire]

From what?

 

Harmful items, or political propaganda.

Tell me you did not just say that....

Do you know what propaganda is? That's basically what TV is.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Tell me you did not just say that....

Do you know what propaganda is? That's basically what TV is.

Which is why I said Media? But; harmful influences and foreign influences must be rejected. Such as the ISIS propaganda within USA, France, and many other nations. I do recalling French citizens burning their French passports with a ISIS behind them and ISIS militant uniforms.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Francisco Franco

[Ashland]

Which is why I said Media? But; harmful influences and foreign influences must be rejected. Such as the ISIS propaganda within USA, France, and many other nations. I do recalling French citizens burning their French passports with a ISIS behind them and ISIS militant uniforms.

So, what?  Let's break down the modern state.  Where does it draw power from?  So, in olden days, the state drew power from a Monarch who drew power from God.  So all the ministers and officials did not have power in and of themselves.  Theoretically.  That's not how it works today.  States draw power from those that they govern saying "Yes, you may govern me. I will allow you to govern me."  That's how it works.  The people are the sovereign and ultimately rule themselves.  Just like the ministers and officials of kings had no real power without the King, the modern state has no real power without us.  That's the whole point.

 

The state can only violate our rights where we allow it to violate our own rights.  We can't "allow" the state to violate only some peoples' rights because everyone is the sovereign, not just a majority.  Let alone a minority.

[SAI-40]

Censorship, is !@#$. That's all I have to say about that.

 

That's beautiful.

 

 

Opinions on Government Censorship, such as in the Media and Interent.

 

(My opinion is that it does violate freedom of speech, but for the good of the nation)

 

You're naive if you think that the 'good of the nation' is what censorship would be used for. Usually, the Government's definition of the 'good of the nation', and the people's definition of the 'god of the nation' are vastly different. Giving the Government power for a 'partial censorship' would give them an excuse to start heading toward full censorship. There's too much leeway in that phrase. You say something bad about the president, or mention a new law that you disagree with? Surprise! You've been censored for 'the good of the nation', and no one hears what you have to say. If someone does notice that you've been censored, how are they going to let people know if you've given the Government the power to silence?

 

It's a "Give the mouse a cookie" sort of problem.

[Fox Fire]

Which is why I said Media? But; harmful influences and foreign influences must be rejected. Such as the ISIS propaganda within USA, France, and many other nations. I do recalling French citizens burning their French passports with a ISIS behind them and ISIS militant uniforms.

I completely disagree. I believe that every human, every opinion, every idea has value. Even ISIS. I completely understand why Islamic State is doing what they are doing, and TBH, they have very legit reasons to be doing it. Now I'm not going to say I agree with them, or their methods, but in the end, war is hell.

I think people deserve to, and should know all about things like Islamic State. Their beliefs, their propaganda, etc. Knowledge is the most valuable thing that we as humans can obtain. Hiding things from people is deliberately attempting to keep them ignorant. If you don't like something someone says, don't listen. Problem solved.

[Ashland]

I completely disagree. I believe that every human, every opinion, every idea has value. Even ISIS. I completely understand why Islamic State is doing what they are doing, and TBH, they have very legit reasons to be doing it. Now I'm not going to say I agree with them, or their methods, but in the end, war is hell.

I think people deserve to, and should know all about things like Islamic State. Their beliefs, their propaganda, etc. Knowledge is the most valuable thing that we as humans can obtain. Hiding things from people is deliberately attempting to keep them ignorant. If you don't like something someone says, don't listen. Problem solved.

Uh... I think their reasons are pretty bad.  ISIS is basically guilty of all of Israel's crimes times a factor of ten.  I've found that's a very good way to explain it to people, because for some reason everyone hates Israel more than ISIS and it's kind of freaking me out.

 

And I'm forced to derail because nobody's responding to my posts, dammit!

Edited December 10, 2014 by Ashland

[Fox Fire]

Uh... I think their reasons are pretty bad.  ISIS is basically guilty of all of Israel's crimes times a factor of ten.  I've found that's a very good way to explain it to people, because for some reason everyone hates Israel more than ISIS and it's kind of freaking me out.

 

And I'm forced to derail because nobody's responding to my posts, dammit!

I really don't think IS has killed nearly as many innocent people as IDF.

But regardless, their reasons for all of this are to create a caliphate in order to put an end to western exploitation of the Muslim world. Thats as a legitimate goal as any.

Can I say I want to see that happen? &#33;@#&#036; no. Not under the doctrine of IS.

[elsuper]

The Government (I am assuming you are talking about USA) doesnt do much censoring. Due to our private sector dominance, most censoring is done by private corporations, for example I cannot say !@#$ here.

 

Say what? http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

 

 

 

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent or profane material.

(emphasis original)

 

Which is why I said Media? But; harmful influences and foreign influences must be rejected. Such as the ISIS propaganda within USA, France, and many other nations. I do recalling French citizens burning their French passports with a ISIS behind them and ISIS militant uniforms.

 

That seems like a poor example. Is someone going to be converted to ISIS's cause by seeing that?

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I really don't think IS has killed nearly as many innocent people as IDF.

But regardless, their reasons for all of this are to create a caliphate in order to put an end to western exploitation of the Muslim world. Thats as a legitimate goal as any.

Can I say I want to see that happen? !@#$ no. Not under the doctrine of IS.

IDF actually has legit reasons of what it did in Gaza. ISIS does not have any reasons, furthermore; it's a break off divison of Al-qaida And let's keep this topic Censorship, no IDF or ISIS topics please.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Francisco Franco