Freedom of Speech VS Censorship

More
6 years 11 months ago #281406 by JamesSand

Not really, because I'm talking about words, not physical assault. Physically attacking/threatening someone is illegal - launching words at them is not.



What's the difference between physically threatening and threatening with words, if I said the following, outside the context of this thread and without the quotes and so on

"I will come to your house and murder you with a knife and stick your head on a broomstick and put it outside my house for halloween" - I'd at the very least get a Tsk tsk from (let's say) Wes or Adder or Gist or someone, and potentially a ban for threatening a fellow member.

Now, in reality, I have little actual ability to carry out that threat (I certainly don't have any spare broom sticks, much less a desire decorate my house for halloween), but you may none the less feel threatened or uncomfortable because of it. (I don't mean uncomfortable in a "watching Hayden Christensen act" sort of way, but in a "double locking all the doors and not wanting to go outside" sort of way)

This, I assume, is what most "Censorship" laws are designed to mitigate.

As always, finding the line between "protecting people from nutters" and "censoring anyone with an opinion that is unpopular" can be tricky.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 11 months ago #281418 by Gisteron
There is a difference between holding a knife to someone's throat and saying that this is what you are going to do when for all we know you don't even know how to find them. Not all threats are created equal, and while the line might get blurry between a threat of violence and an edgy post, that a physical threat is unlike the latter, where ever the line between them may be, is for the most part pretty clear. Now how clear and fine that line needs to be or where on the spectrum exactly it belongs, surely that'll be a matter of opinion and debate for a long time to come, both in society at large and subcultures within it as well as the law. I don't think we are doing either ourselves or the issue any favours if we begin to conflate words with deeds. If the only way to make a liberal argument in favour of censorship requires recategorizing speech as a way of doing things to people, maybe there really isn't an argument here at all.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 11 months ago #282173 by ZealotX
I believe in checks and balances. When you have free speech without that it can be very dangerous. On an individual level speech should be protected. However, there are checks and balances. What typically happens is that if the individual goes on a platform with greater influence it is the platform that assumes the risk. And then market forces dictates how much the platform censors those who use it.

Organized speech has the potential for great power and influence because people have a greater tendency to accept what is said as "the truth". It is kind of like the effect of pastors prompting their congregations to say "Amen" because they know psychologically that reinforces what they're saying.

So organized speech can be very positive or very negative. If Malcolm X and MLK weren't allowed to be heard who knows where we'd be. At the same time the fan base of Alex Jones thinks he is telling them the truth when in reality, as recent court proceedings have confirmed, he is only playing a character. Why? Market forces. And it's dangerous because given the wrong information individuals are willing to go out and commit murder based on what they believe.

Censorship often overreacts to the fear of these views and opinions reaching critical mass. And the problem is that many individuals only hear one side of the story. They get reinforced over and over in a single message or narrative, allowing old issues like racism and sexism to persist.

People often ask the question, what if you could go back in time and kill Adolf Hitler? Hitler started out just talking. He was a voice of nationalism. He was speaking a message that was resonating. Nothing would have come as a result if people hadn't been so willing and accepting of such a message. But they were seduced by the "Dark Side" as a pathway to get what they wanted at the expense of others.

Speech should be free but censorship should be a check and balance permitted under the circumstance that BOTH SIDES are not presented. In other words, if you're going to use an influential platform for biased propaganda then choose a platform that agrees with you that will most likely not censor you. No civil rights leader in America expects to go on Fox News to raise awareness for African American issues without heavy criticism by the host. If you're going to a platform where the majority ("mob rule" = democracy) are either hostile to your position or you're up against a very loud minority then you're rolling the dice to see who shows up. No one is forced to give you their platform to speak. No one is forced to sit quietly by while you attempt to influence others with what "might" be socially destructive. Some of the censorship is out of control but I think even that arises from an equal and opposite out of control voice on the other side that people feel so passionately about stopping.

So at the end of the day, conflict is inherent in disagreement and both sides deserve to be heard. If one side is presenting and you're expecting the other side to be quiet... it may not work out that way. So it would be better then... as a response... to invite both sides to a public debate. This way they don't have to protest each other's views. They can debate them and let the audience decide who is right. Where there is conflict we need to meet in the middle.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi