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.

The problem with vulnerable people is that they are vulnerable
It's a bit tough to expect the victim to be the only measure of appropriate response to being attacked, so I think lines do need to be drawn in some cases. It's what governments are supposed to do, cover the weak areas so they are not taken advantage of, and providing some measure of 'security' as some baseline for maximum participation of the highest amount of that societies population. It's not really shown to be appropriate to pretend others will protect strangers in complex, dangerous or unexpected circumstances reliably... while it might happen from time to time its usually a safer bet to have some 'professional' capacity to provide security to the vulnerable.

And the problem is compounded since it seems quite difficult to measure suffering in someone else unless your right there with them, so those protections might then logically have to err on the side of being slightly too heavy BUT freedom of speech more generally seems vital as a measure of vibrancy in some way, maybe because we are social creatures seemingly or at least view ourselves as such.

A common argument I hear on topics like this is that what is a right to one is a duty to another. Education is not censoring ideas in favour of others. It is providing sufficient information on as many of them as can be in a maximally neutral way to the best knowledge of the educators. What opinion the person forms as a result is their business and short of the clichée example of yelling fire in a full theatre, or crying for violence in an already agitated group, I believe that expressing ideas should come with no legal consequence. The associated duty falls not to fellow citizens, to listen to anything anybody says - nobody is entitled to their ideas being heard by those who otherwise wouldn't wish to hear them - but to the sovereign to protect the speaker if need be, from those who would wish to violate their right to speak. Individually we are not obliged to feel tolerant about anything, but if we collectively decided that we want freedom of creative expression (i.e. speech, written word, art etc; as opposed to destructive), then those we elected directly or indirectly to represent and enable that ambition must not be choosing what specific ideas are or are not permissible. Rather their job is to expand the law in accordance with the will of the people and enforce it through the protocols expressed therein for that purpose. If we collectively say that an idea must not be spoken, by doing so we deny those who do or used to hold it the social contract. We exclude them from society and deny them representation. Power formed in that way does not originate with all citizens living under it and can thus not be legitimized as being rooted within the citizenry until and unless the people whose ideas we wish to ban are also denied the right to vote.

Ideas are one thing but there is also information - which could be seen as distinct in having real direct associations. While ideas might simply create subjective interpretations, in contrast might not information inform about something - and so education might be better shaped to engage with a particular audience to take into account various factors which might impede learning... including maybe sensitivity in some topics. Not to mention privacy and security vulnerabilities.

People get too offended by others viewpoints. It's virtually impossible to go anywhere now and not get someone that doesn't agree with you on a certain subjects. I have a right to my opinion just as much as you do and I have a right to voice it if I wish but, my opinion and right to stand on my own "soap box" is my choice alone. Too much hate in our world today. Whether it be on subjects of religion, politics or anything in the middle. Now, Albeit I know in certain countries you don't have that right and/or is limited by the government. I am not for riots, hate crimes against humanity or a public figure just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to take it to the next step with violence or criminalize that person for having a right to voice their opinion.

"There is no emotion, there is peace."
MTFBWY

Education is not censoring ideas in favour of others. It is providing sufficient information on as many of them as can be in a maximally neutral way to the best knowledge of the educators.

It's...not that simple.

I train people (call it education maybe) The things I train in are things that can kill or maim you.

If I was being completely "neutral" - I would just give a Physics and a Biology lesson, and let them work out what happens :laugh:

So, I train people in the "right" way to do things...and leave it at that.

I suppose if I wanted to be fair, I could teach the wrong way, but there really isn't much benefit, and it only confuses the mind (Shit, which way was the right way?) - If I only teach the safe way, they know that ANY OTHER way is NOT the safe way.



One might take this sketchy example further, and say if I discovered someone was out there teaching dangerous practices to people in the field, I would take exception to that and attempt to stop this.

Am I denying them freedom of speech? am I censoring them? - Sure I am, because they're giving out dangerous "information"


You're welcome to your views and opinions in the privacy of your own home - If you're persuaded you can freefall 45m and stick the landing, bloody well go for it - Don't imagine you have any right to persuade anyone else those views have any validity or value.

When I said neutral I didn't mean that the teaching ought to be without judgement or present all alternatives as even to qualify as education. Sure, you can say that some people believe that they would fall if they jumped off a bridge and others don't, but it would be quite the disservice to the students if one were to withhold the fact that one of the camps is incorrect by an outrageously overwhelming amount of standards. Of course the fair and neutral position becomes ever more blurry the farther we move away from matters of fact and onto questions of politics or ethics. Being honest may not be sufficient to stay fair, but one who is fair (to the extent that we can tell so) must as well be honest.

Leah Starspectre wrote: 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.

Leah that is like saying a robbery victim had the choice of getting shot or giving in to the demands. A threat of force negates true freedom. That is why people can't put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract. Blackmail and coercion exist and are illegal for a very good reason.


As far as my thoughts on the matter I believe short of calling for outright violence ( which is no different than threatening someone directly in my eyes) there is no such thing as hate speech. Speech that hurts my feelings or says that I am lesser for whatever trait you care to mention has all the power I give it. Censoring it with mob threats or legal ones does nothing to refute the idea or make it go away. It deepens the idea by driving it underground and making people wonder what the censor is so afraid of. " Cutting out a man's tongue does not prove him a liar, it shows you fear what he might say"

MadHatter wrote: Leah that is like saying a robbery victim had the choice of getting shot or giving in to the demands. A threat of force negates true freedom. That is why people can't put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract. Blackmail and coercion exist and are illegal for a very good reason.

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

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Leah that is like saying a robbery victim had the choice of getting shot or giving in to the demands. A threat of force negates true freedom. That is why people can't put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract. Blackmail and coercion exist and are illegal for a very good reason.

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

MadHatter mentioned "Threat of Force". This is what we see in the article. People are being censored by a mob that threatens violence if you don't conform to their views. MadHatter's parable seems to fit the description. You can:

A ) State your opinion despite the loaded gun (the mob) and get the bullet
B ) Don't say anything and have your rights taken away by the mob.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Leah that is like saying a robbery victim had the choice of getting shot or giving in to the demands. A threat of force negates true freedom. That is why people can't put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract. Blackmail and coercion exist and are illegal for a very good reason.

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

Ok, might have misunderstood your meaning because when I hear mob I think the mobs of thugs that tried to burn down Berkeley because they didn't like a chosen speaker. Frankly, even the mobs of screaming animals that try to shut down an event that people paid for is censoring free speech. If every time you tried to speak I screamed over you with a megaphone you can't honestly say you are free to speak. I mean that would be like saying you are free to post here if every time you posted it just got blacked out.
EDIT: Better example would you say you were free to see a movie if every time you tried to fifty people stood in front of the screen and screamed to down out the sound? Or would you say the stopped you from seeing it and want a refund?

Also yes I have harsh thoughts and words about these mobs because I can't stand their mentality. You do not get to shut down speakers people invite & pay for just because you dont like them. You are darn near robbing people by doing so. Don't like it, don't attend, get your own speaker for your own event, challenge the ideas at a debate. But shutting them down is cowardly, borderline theft, and the tactics these people use are similar to chimps shrieking and flinging poop at a zoo.