| Should we censor? |
| Yes. Offensive/obscene materials, anything that makes fun of a particular demographic or religious group, or anything that is in opposition to the reigning party's political views should be banned. |
|
4% |
[ 2 ] |
| Some things should be banned, such as hard-core porn and extremely dangerous or hateful speech (ie no KKK rallies in the city park) |
|
20% |
[ 9 ] |
| Censor nothing. Bring on the hard-core porn and allow all speech, no matter how hateful. |
|
64% |
[ 29 ] |
| Orwell should be censored. |
|
11% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 45 |
|
burningviolin
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Feb 23, 2009
Posts: 36
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I thought the currently accepted benchmark for the boundary of free speech is the example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Are you saying that speech that directly causes death, destruction, or any other nasty D's should be legal? In that case what about when somebody orders someone else to commit a crime. Is the orderer from prosecution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| burningviolin wrote: | | I thought the currently accepted benchmark for the boundary of free speech is the example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Are you saying that speech that directly causes death, destruction, or any other nasty D's should be legal? In that case what about when somebody orders someone else to commit a crime. Is the orderer from prosecution? |
The whole "fire in a crowded theater" bit is reasonable enough. The problem is that courts have and will interpret this restriction to mean that freedom of speech doesn't actually exist if it becomes inconvenient. Eugene Debs was thrown in prison for advocating draft resistance during WWI- he was ordering people to commit crimes. Do you agree with the decision to lock up Debs simply because he spoke out against an imperialistic war that sacrificed the common man for the ambitions of the elite?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
just_ben
Velociraptor
Joined: Mar 30, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 421
Location: That would be an ecumenical matter!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn, that's a lot of libertarians (including myself).
I personally don't think anything should be censored. The sooner it's put out there for everyone to see, the less nasty it is.
But yeah, I know that stuff like snuff movies will always be a bit iffy. But it's not really the broadcast that's the problem, it's the fact that someone's being killed. If we were to spend our time making sure people weren't so messed up to make something like a snuff film, then the problem would be solved, right?
_________________
I stand alone on the cliffs of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
burningviolin
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Feb 23, 2009
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I probably should have said "violent crime".
The courts can interpret laws in a number of ways. They could interpret the same law in an opposite, liberal way and declare that everything is legal except for the specific case of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. This is ridiculous, of course. But during WW1 draft resistance was viewed as treasonous (for want of a better word) by the majority of people. For the courts to suddenly announce that he was not doing anything wrong would have been completely ridiculous, and would have been immediately challenged by the government. Now, times have changed (for the better) and Debs is viewed as you view him. Any restriction you place on anything will inevitably be subject to interpretation and language is rarely, if ever, precise enough to cover any eventuality or argument.
I don't think that we should then abandon any restrictions. Anarchy is not very attractive. I think then we should try for laws which restrict actions which cause immediate harm to other people (without their permission, but that's a whole other minefield  ), property, etc and err on the liberal side in boundary cases.
I can see a whole range of problematic details with this, but for now I'm willing to go with it as a principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
claire-333
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AdvilPM wrote: | | I'm an American, so that is why I answered the way I did, clearly. |
You had not stated your position clearly, so I was not certain. I did not know you were trying to get a rise out of Orwell; sorry if I butted in and spoiled your fun.
| AdvilPM wrote: | | My questions about contact sports was meant to be ridiculous. |
 Totally missed it.
| Orwell wrote: | | And claire333, I'm definitely opposed to people getting "flagged" for accessing certain materials, because that creates a chilling effect, not to mention requiring extensive government surveillance of which I would not approve. |
Yeah, I am not sure anyone is thrilled about the idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sartresue
Radical Aspergian
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Posts: 6750
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: Smut |
|
|
Making sense of censorship topic
This was time well spent, reading this thread, and all the posts. Orwell makes excellent points. I wish I could have argued so well at his age.
Sometimes, in order to understand an issue, I play devil's advocate. Here I will explore the reasons behind certain censorship.
In extraordinary times, censorship is a necessary block on human rights in order to prevent a further evil. I am talking about during wartime (WWs 1 and 2) lest certain information ends up on the other side. Of course it could be argued that hindsight is perfect vision. Of course censorship worked on the Allied side. The Nazis lost the war. Perhaps a lack of censorship might have prolonged hostilities. We will never know for sure.
Censorship arises in the first place because of extreme thinking. Would allowing such-and-such merely influence or incite the behaviour? Paternalistic thinking suggests the latter. It is rooted in mistrust of people's abilities to choose. And these paternalists (overwhelmingly male, I might add) would err on the side of caution and prohibit or censor certain activities/speech, thinking it was for the good of all. Now we are not all made from the same cloth, but no matter. If even a small fraction of the populace would be incited to do a dastardly deed, then through out the proverbial soap with the bath water. This is what happens with Zero Tolerance.
So should there be censorship? Of the sort depicted in the poll? Oddly enough there is more freedom now than there was years ago. Yet there still are some sticky areas, usually involving porn and racial prejudice. Even these issues are not clear cut. Is criticism of Israel antisemitism? Is criticism of African leadership racial prejudice? Because these two issues involve minorities, they are sensitive issues. I believe that criticism is valid if the argument is carefully worded with adequate/reasonable evidence. I do not believe dressing up in sheets and calling for death to African Americans free speech. Nor do I think that pedophiles have the freedom to promote their love of child sex in a public arena known as the Internet. Calling for the destruction of Israelis or Palestinians is incitement to destroy these people.
Holocaust deniers prompted the creation of anti-defamation laws. These revisionist thinkers were not doing an academic review of the meaning of the Holocaust. They were denying it ever took place, and there was a hidden agenda. Same with those who argued that the theory of evolution is a hoax. The damage is the reason for denying it: to promote the idea of intelligent design as science to replace Darwin's theory in high school science classes.
I think that like the poor, the kooks will always be with us. If there must be censorship, it must be judiciously reviewed from time to time and should never be written in stone, except in very extreme cases, in extraordinary times. Perhaps when genocide deniers, pedophiles, and pseudo scientists come to their senses, censorship will be unnecessary. 
_________________
Radical Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind
Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory
NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo |
|
| Back to top |
|
DentArthurDent
Evolve Ye Christians & Dozers
Joined: Jul 27, 2008
Age: 48
Posts: 2612
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | So, Dent, I think it's time for us to have another debate on capitalism vs communism... Soon enough you'll be a good libertarian. |
Well seeing as you mentioned it, this quote from you made me think that you would make a good Socialist
| Quote: | | Do you agree with the decision to lock up Debs simply because he spoke out against an imperialistic war that sacrificed the common man for the ambitions of the elite? |
Bring on the debate, by its very definition capitalism cannot be ethical and offer any reasonable amount of equality. All libertarians do is to try and ameliorate the effect of capitalism and in doing so prevent the majority of the population from gaining a reasonable standard of living,
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DentArthurDent wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | So, Dent, I think it's time for us to have another debate on capitalism vs communism... Soon enough you'll be a good libertarian. |
Well seeing as you mentioned it, this quote from you made me think that you would make a good Socialist |
Oh, you're on. Did you know I used to be a Socialist?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Do you agree with the decision to lock up Debs simply because he spoke out against an imperialistic war that sacrificed the common man for the ambitions of the elite? |
Bring on the debate, by its very definition capitalism cannot be ethical and offer any reasonable amount of equality. All libertarians do is to try and ameliorate the effect of capitalism and in doing so prevent the majority of the population from gaining a reasonable standard of living, |
I was wondering when you'd go after that quote.
Well, whether capitalism can be ethical or not obviously depends on what set of ethics you go by. It can offer some equality, but then why is equality to be valued anyways? In a capitalist society such as the US, most of the populations has a good standard of living. Strong correlations have been found between economic freedom and economic well-being. Besides that, communism prevents any of the population from gaining a reasonable standard of living because efficient production is impossible under communism.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” -Winston Churchill
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
DentArthurDent
Evolve Ye Christians & Dozers
Joined: Jul 27, 2008
Age: 48
Posts: 2612
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
Besides that, communism prevents any of the population from gaining a reasonable standard of living because efficient production is impossible under communism.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” -Winston Churchill |
First of all I do not think communism is likely, socialism yes. Secondly I am surprised at you for the weakness of this argument, the very idea of socialism is to find the best possible use for resources by removing the profit motive and having resources used on a needs basis. The soviet bloc was really a group of principalities under the emperor. There was corruption on a massive scale, under these conditions it is hardly surprising that efficiency was atrocious.
And as for quoting someone whos only quality was to be a good warmonger 
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DentArthurDent wrote: | | First of all I do not think communism is likely, socialism yes. Secondly I am surprised at you for the weakness of this argument, the very idea of socialism is to find the best possible use for resources by removing the profit motive and having resources used on a needs basis. The soviet bloc was really a group of principalities under the emperor. There was corruption on a massive scale, under these conditions it is hardly surprising that efficiency was atrocious. |
Right, you're a statist socialist, almost forgot. I'll just pull out the problem of information making a planned economy impossible. Or I could copy Böhm-Bawerk's criticism that Marxism has an inaccurate labor theory of value. Other Austrian School economists demonstrated years ago that in the absence of a market economies have no rational way of allocating resources (the economic calculation debate).
And though it's a tired old cliché, the argument from self-interest does work fairly effectively against socialism. I personally form very strong loyalties towards groups, working harder for a group than I typically will for myself (why this is I have no idea, it seems irrational). Most people do not develop such allegiance to groups and so will not be willing to work for the overall betterment of society than they will for their own benefit.
| Quote: | | And as for quoting someone whos only quality was to be a good warmonger |
Hey, he was also a very witty drunk.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
  |
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
-> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion
|
Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
|
|
|
