Freedom of Speech VS Censorship

ARTICLE: FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS CENSORSHIP

Seems like a good topic for discussion.

Mob censorship seems to be fuelling the world of late, where emotions and feelings overrun facts, logic, and (in cases) actual laws.

So what do you think?

May the Force guide this discussion.

I believe that people should have the freedom to say what they wish BUT with the understanding that they may not necessarily have protection from the consequences of what they choose to say.

There are exceptions, of course, such as in the case of public safety, but as a general rule, that's how I see things.

A good response, but here is a follow up.

Many of these people that are being "mob censored" are not stating open hate speech. Should someone's right to free speech (within reason, no open hate speech obviously), because they're afraid of being attacked for their views? Should those that don't conform to the views of the mob censor themselves, impugning upon their free speech?

I don’t know if you’ve seen the video in the title picture (its on youtube somewhere). The SJW group pcitured attacked this professor verbally because he taught about Nazi Culture. He was not supporting it, just teaching about it. And he was openly cornered and attacked by people that did not take his course. Should he censor himself for other people’s sensitivities?

Leah Starspectre wrote: I believe that people should have the freedom to say what they wish BUT with the understanding that they may not necessarily have protection from the consequences of what they choose to say.

There are exceptions, of course, such as in the case of public safety, but as a general rule, that's how I see things.

Exactly my view. It is unfortunate today that even with evidence and references it's typical to get responses of name calling and put downs. Mob censorship has broken the freedom of speech without the governments help.

I think that mob censorship has no place in intelligent society, period. But if a person has beliefs that he feels will lead to people attacking if he speaks them, he has 2 choices:
1. Say what he wants and take on the fight
2. Not say them in the interest of self-preservation.

His freedom to speak (or not) remains.

Should the mob be free to speak their thoughts? Yes. Should they be allowed to.censor his thoughts? No.

This may or may not be an applicable response (I only skimmed the article because I'm on a short lunch break right now):

Speaking as an American, from a purely American standpoint, one of the beauties of our free speech platform is that protests are met by counter protests (ex: Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, Pro-LGBT vs Pro-Traditional Relationship, etc) ALL. THE. TIME. We aren't a country where your platform has to match the platform of the elected officials. So long as your demonstration (and the counter demonstration) is peaceable and doesn't disrupt public safety in any way, people and the government will usually look the other way. Very frequently the problem arises out of die hards on both sides coming to heads and causing disruption. But just a few weeks ago, I saw a Pro-LGBT and an Anti-LGBT demonstration here in my own, very highly conservation and Christianized town, that was extremely peaceful. There were no arrests. That's the way it should be. So long as cooler heads prevail, this will "always" be a beauty that Americans get to enjoy.

Now, I put always in quotes, because what I'm concerned about is the fact that there seems to be a prevailing change from "your platform doesn't have to match the platform of the elected officials" to "your platform must match the platform of the elected officials". This is apparent most within the government itself... for now. From the DOJ's attempt to unmask the individuals behind the various Alt-[Insert Gov't Branch Here] Facebook and Twitter accounts, to the deliberate removal of anything remotely climate change related from all aspects of the current government. Not only are we losing transparency in these attempts, we're losing valuable research and progress that the entire human race may one day depend on.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about that kind of censorship than protests being met by counter protests. Not because the second can't be concerning, because it most certainly has the capability of being very concerning and has shown to be violent in the past, but because the first is government endorsed censorship with the very strong capability of expanding to the rest of the country and down onto your regular Joe Schmoes if we aren't careful. Let that happen and there will be no such thing as "protest vs counter protest"... there won't be any protests at all, unless we're all uprising against the government itself.

(Note: I'm not referring to generalized 'censorship' that comes with having knowledge obtained via security clearances, because that's an entirely different story...)

I support the freedom of speech without limitation. If someone wishes to spout hate speech, that's their problem and it's not my duty to respond in any way other than how I would respond to mindless babbling. They can choose to speak in whatever way they wish. Any punishment which comes to them in response to that speech should not be done by a governing body, but should come about naturally in their interactions with others. There is no reason to entertain the words of those who would choose to speak unkindly or with spite, and as a result of the irrelevance that speech it is ridiculous to legislate such a thing.

And if someone is hateful and spouts hate speech, what can possibly even be done about it? They already bring about their own ruin via public perception of their character. We can't have legal limits on what people can think. That is absurd. The entire process of censorship is nothing more than a method by which the many can impose their own beliefs on those who don't share those beliefs, and in the worst case can be used to uphold absurdity and obscure the truth. I believe that it is not the duty of government or anyone else to tell people what is and is not an acceptable thought. Morals and rules will inevitably change from one culture to another, and language is constantly evolving. What was an insult a few hundred years ago may be a complement in another hundred years, and those words which are considered offensive or hate speech also constantly evolve.

An example follows. If you're offended by harsh language, don't read it, I guess.



Which of those terms, at what point in time, deserve to be censored? Once censored, is it just to de-censor a word? Who decided what censorship takes place? It's a fruitless endeavor, anyway. New words and phrases pop up all the time, and as with the earlier example, it would be absurdly difficult to maintain a censor which does what censorship is supposed to do (namely to prevent hate speech) due to standards of social evolution which seem bound to remain regardless of any efforts made against them. If its intended goal is impossible, does censorship serve ANY worthwhile function?

As I said, censorship can be used to obscure the truth. Many books have been censored due to their content -- and I don't mean offensive content. I mean religious, political, or philosophical content. At any point when deciding upon which powers should be available to governing bodies, the misuse of that power must be considered. I say that censorship is a smudge on our history as a species. Art has suffered due to it. Philosophy and science have suffered due to it. Average citizens have suffered due to it. Saying "Oh, shit!" on camera can destroy a career. Taking into consideration the limits imposed by censorship and the ease of misusing censors, I think that giving someone or something the power necessary to impose censorship is a silly mistake which should be redacted immediately.

I'm sure that some problems would pop up if we were to completely get rid of censorship. But adults should be able to say what they wish and consume the information that they want, and they should be active enough in their children's lives to at least set some ground rules like "don't watch the pornography channels on TV" if they don't want their child consuming certain kinds of media. Imposing censors and delivering legal punishments for words (as opposed to actions) is unnecessary, ineffective, costs a ridiculous amount of money, buries artistic/intellectual endeavors in bureaucracy, and has no place in a free and just society.

Arisaig wrote: A good response, but here is a follow up.

Many of these people that are being "mob censored" are not stating open hate speech. Should someone's right to free speech (within reason, no open hate speech obviously), because they're afraid of being attacked for their views? Should those that don't conform to the views of the mob censor themselves, impugning upon their free speech?

open hate speech is better for society than private secretive hate speech - when it is secretive it can grow unnoticed

when it is open and public it can be publicly countered with rational argumentation. which is how free speech works. everyone voices their views, then everyone critiques each others views. we all learn from these exchanges and our views mature. this is how culture evolves.

Arisaig wrote: I don’t know if you’ve seen the video in the title picture (its on youtube somewhere). The SJW group pcitured attacked this professor verbally because he taught about Nazi Culture. He was not supporting it, just teaching about it. And he was openly cornered and attacked by people that did not take his course. Should he censor himself for other people’s sensitivities?

not only should he continue teaching his class but his university and his city counsel should openly support his right to teach the class

I believe in complete Freedom of Speech , i dont like it when people say things just to hurt others , but like some here said , i cannot tell other people what to say or think , and i am of the opinion that being offended is a choice that every person can make for himself. The conseqences for what you say you have to carry yourself , that i agree with, Its what you learn your kids , words mean things and words have effect.

Tsst.


In theory, in an ideal world, I believe in free speech. In practice, I do not.

For a few reasons - One, because of my professional nature that requires a certain level of "marketing" - Free speech is bad for business.

Two - because you "Are what you eat" - it's all well and good to say "rational people will vilify those who talk crap" - but that is not the case is it? If you are raised with crap, you'll believe and support crap when you encounter it.

To sit there and say "Free speech is not an issue because there are enough critical thinkers out there to counter it" is blindingly ignorant of, well ignorance.

First, we need to have "everyone" at a certain baseline of education - in order the reach that level of education you need to deliver (and in turn, censor) certain information and thoughts during a person's development.


Of course, this is essentially brainwashing, but apparently acceptable because we are brainwashing to achieve a magical ideal future where everyone is intelligent and thoughtful and considers the issues before believing in and promoting them - it has been a parents god-given right to brainwash their own children for some time, as long as the *wash* in question is fashionable with the other kids at daycare.