Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Censorship: When should it be used?

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:06:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That is the opposite of freedom of speech. You do not censor any statements.

I am very much against insults, whether they are targeted at whites, blacks, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Pastafarians, Darwinists, and so forth. Hate speech brings no good. If people want a society that functions well as a whole, they should permit whatever brings light upon it, and prohibit whatever brings darkness upon it.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:09:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:06:14 PM, Mirza wrote:
That is the opposite of freedom of speech. You do not censor any statements.

I am very much against insults, whether they are targeted at whites, blacks, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Pastafarians, Darwinists, and so forth. Hate speech brings no good. If people want a society that functions well as a whole, they should permit whatever brings light upon it, and prohibit whatever brings darkness upon it.

Well what about if, for example, somebody was openly preaching that all blacks should be exterminated? Is that ok? I certainly don't think it is.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:10:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:02:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Is it ok to censor hate speech in order to protect the targeted group? Is it ever ok to use censorship? Thoughts?

Censorship for those above the age of majority is always a bad thing.

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:11:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:09:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Well what about if, for example, somebody was openly preaching that all blacks should be exterminated? Is that ok? I certainly don't think it is.
That is hate speech, and insulting, too.

Disciplining such people would be good.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:12:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:06:14 PM, Mirza wrote:
That is the opposite of freedom of speech. You do not censor any statements.

I am very much against insults, whether they are targeted at whites, blacks, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Pastafarians, Darwinists, and so forth. Hate speech brings no good. If people want a society that functions well as a whole, they should permit whatever brings light upon it, and prohibit whatever brings darkness upon it.

Which one of these statements did you intend? You can't have intended both.

Lolcensorship.

Well what about if, for example, somebody was openly preaching that all blacks should be exterminated? Is that ok?
Yes, in the sense you oughtn't censor them, no-- in the sense you ought not grant them your sanction. Prohibit the ACT of exterminating all blacks, not the abstract advocacy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:12:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:02:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Is it ok to censor hate speech in order to protect the targeted group? Is it ever ok to use censorship? Thoughts?

to censor for the protection of the target of hate speech? I have no idea what good you think your protecting people from. Protecting them so there feelings dont get hurt? If someone targets me with hate speech like 'you stupid freckle freak!' no one should censor my ears from that, least I think I dont need to grow up and learn to ignor it.
So I would say its not okay even to protect the targeted group. doing so would incurage the wussification of my country
If you think your in danger of hate speech with no protection of censorship from it I would recomend you PUT A HELMIT ON!
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:13:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:12:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which one of these statements did you intend? You can't have intended both.

Lolcensorship.
I have not said that I am advocating freedom of speech.

Well what about if, for example, somebody was openly preaching that all blacks should be exterminated? Is that ok?
Yes, in the sense you oughtn't censor them, no-- in the sense you ought not grant them your sanction. Prohibit the ACT of exterminating all blacks, not the abstract advocacy.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:15:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In my opinion, no form of censorship what so ever should be prescribed by law. But if there happens to be some off scenario where someone saying something would result in someone's death or something of similar tragedy, you should probably stop them whether it's legal or not.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:16:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:09:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:06:14 PM, Mirza wrote:
That is the opposite of freedom of speech. You do not censor any statements.

I am very much against insults, whether they are targeted at whites, blacks, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Pastafarians, Darwinists, and so forth. Hate speech brings no good. If people want a society that functions well as a whole, they should permit whatever brings light upon it, and prohibit whatever brings darkness upon it.

Well what about if, for example, somebody was openly preaching that all blacks should be exterminated? Is that ok? I certainly don't think it is.

I think that is ok.

I don't think anything should be censored except one thing. Slander/libel. Those who he spread deliberate lies about something should be silenced. For example, those who say David Icke is a holocaust denier and Jew hater. Those are deliberate lies used to defame him. However, I have no problem with people calling him a crackpot nutter psychopath because he believes in aliens. Because, well, it's true and you have every right to express your dislike towards his views. However, it's not okay to accuse him of having views he doesn't have.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:18:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:16:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think that is ok.

I don't think anything should be censored except one thing. Slander/libel. Those who he spread deliberate lies about something should be silenced. For example, those who say David Icke is a holocaust denier and Jew hater. Those are deliberate lies used to defame him. However, I have no problem with people calling him a crackpot nutter psychopath because he believes in aliens. Because, well, it's true and you have every right to express your dislike towards his views. However, it's not okay to accuse him of having views he doesn't have.
Slander makes you feel bad, and so does insult. Slander may be fairly more personal, but insults can touch one very deep in the heart, too.

I do not see the logic of this.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:19:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:18:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:16:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think that is ok.

I don't think anything should be censored except one thing. Slander/libel. Those who he spread deliberate lies about something should be silenced. For example, those who say David Icke is a holocaust denier and Jew hater. Those are deliberate lies used to defame him. However, I have no problem with people calling him a crackpot nutter psychopath because he believes in aliens. Because, well, it's true and you have every right to express your dislike towards his views. However, it's not okay to accuse him of having views he doesn't have.
Slander makes you feel bad, and so does insult. Slander may be fairly more personal, but insults can touch one very deep in the heart, too.

I do not see the logic of this.

Mizra I think you should put a helmit on, it will protect you from all hate speech.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:20:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:16:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:09:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:06:14 PM, Mirza wrote:
That is the opposite of freedom of speech. You do not censor any statements.

I am very much against insults, whether they are targeted at whites, blacks, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Pastafarians, Darwinists, and so forth. Hate speech brings no good. If people want a society that functions well as a whole, they should permit whatever brings light upon it, and prohibit whatever brings darkness upon it.

Well what about if, for example, somebody was openly preaching that all blacks should be exterminated? Is that ok? I certainly don't think it is.

I think that is ok.

I don't think anything should be censored except one thing. Slander/libel. Those who he spread deliberate lies about something should be silenced. For example, those who say David Icke is a holocaust denier and Jew hater. Those are deliberate lies used to defame him. However, I have no problem with people calling him a crackpot nutter psychopath because he believes in aliens. Because, well, it's true and you have every right to express your dislike towards his views. However, it's not okay to accuse him of having views he doesn't have.

Slander happens already daily.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:21:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:19:32 PM, Marauder wrote:
Mizra I think you should put a helmit on, it will protect you from all hate speech.
Words are one of the most dangerous things in the world. They are not physical.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:23:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:21:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:19:32 PM, Marauder wrote:
Mizra I think you should put a helmit on, it will protect you from all hate speech.
Words are one of the most dangerous things in the world. They are not physical.

I agree with that. Like look where words got Hitler. Look what his words resulted in.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:25:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:18:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:16:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think that is ok.

I don't think anything should be censored except one thing. Slander/libel. Those who he spread deliberate lies about something should be silenced. For example, those who say David Icke is a holocaust denier and Jew hater. Those are deliberate lies used to defame him. However, I have no problem with people calling him a crackpot nutter psychopath because he believes in aliens. Because, well, it's true and you have every right to express your dislike towards his views. However, it's not okay to accuse him of having views he doesn't have.
Slander makes you feel bad, and so does insult. Slander may be fairly more personal, but insults can touch one very deep in the heart, too.

I do not see the logic of this.

It's not about insults and feeling bad. It's about truth and lies. If the truth hurts then so be it. However, spreading falsehoods whether they make someone feel good or bad should be silenced. You can call me a whole bunch of names for believing what I do, but you cannot accuse me of having beliefs I don't have. If you say that I believe Jews are bad, you should be silenced. If you say that I am an anorexic, psychotic, freak for believing in aliens. That's fine because my views are being properly represented.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:25:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Resources required: In my Ideal world. Free speech is allowed but if used as contracting or as conspiracy to murder its illegal. Basically if your free speech is in direct causes to death your liable. I think this is already in practice in the US-UK.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:28:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:23:35 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:21:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:19:32 PM, Marauder wrote:
Mizra I think you should put a helmit on, it will protect you from all hate speech.
Words are one of the most dangerous things in the world. They are not physical.

I agree with that. Like look where words got Hitler. Look what his words resulted in.

That does not mean you result to something as rediculous as censorship and call it good. how can ever hope for control in what speech is persecuted as hate speach? once upon a time recognizeing queer sex was sinfull and speaking about it was just speech and now its nearly being called a hate crime.
I'm I being hatefull to convicted homocides if I make it choice to speak against murdering, or liers when I speak against lying and claim we should speak only truth?

The only solution to bad speech (even dangerous) is more speech, not less.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:29:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:25:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Resources required: In my Ideal world. Free speech is allowed but if used as contracting or as conspiracy to murder its illegal. Basically if your free speech is in direct causes to death your liable. I think this is already in practice in the US-UK.

I command you to jump off a bridge. Do you want to arrest me now for saying that?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:30:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:21:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:19:32 PM, Marauder wrote:
Mizra I think you should put a helmit on, it will protect you from all hate speech.
Words are one of the most dangerous things in the world. They are not physical.

Words have changed society, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. Words are indeed powerful and can propel us forward into an enlightenment or thrust us back to the dark ages. However, adults need to be able to handle the words in a free society, and practice restraint and propriety. Self censorship is the best avenue, and use the power of words freely and responsibly.

Without even a government's interference there are consequences we have with the words and language we choose. Those consequences need to be considered in what and how we say. Conversely we should judge a person by what they say, and how they say it. If someone says gays should be killed, i just think they are an idiot, and most others agree with me. They have no power over me and cannot hurt me, and i really don't care.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:31:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:25:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It's not about insults and feeling bad. It's about truth and lies. If the truth hurts then so be it. However, spreading falsehoods whether they make someone feel good or bad should be silenced. You can call me a whole bunch of names for believing what I do, but you cannot accuse me of having beliefs I don't have. If you say that I believe Jews are bad, you should be silenced. If you say that I am an anorexic, psychotic, freak for believing in aliens. That's fine because my views are being properly represented.
Insults are always true? When has this been correct? If you tell me that I do not deserve to be alive because I am following a religion, which makes me an idiot/stupid man etc., then you are insulting me, and how is that 'telling the truth'? What is true about this? If something endangers me and other people, then it should be dealt with. Slander is no worse than this in many cases.

Furthermore, what you may consider being 'slander' can be fairly different to what I consider it to be. Not the term 'slander' itself, but a case of slander. Is a statement about a person true or not, is the question. When people say bad things about one historical and religious person that I love, then I call it slander.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:31:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:29:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:25:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Resources required: In my Ideal world. Free speech is allowed but if used as contracting or as conspiracy to murder its illegal. Basically if your free speech is in direct causes to death your liable. I think this is already in practice in the US-UK.

I command you to jump off a bridge. Do you want to arrest me now for saying that?

Technically you would only be liable if he actually did it. If you were threatening and intimidating him into doing it then yea, you would definitely be held liable.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:33:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:30:37 PM, innomen wrote:
If someone says gays should be killed, i just think they are an idiot, and most others agree with me. They have no power over me and cannot hurt me, and i really don't care.

But what if said person got into a position of power? Then there would be a need to be concerned.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:33:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:31:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:29:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:25:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Resources required: In my Ideal world. Free speech is allowed but if used as contracting or as conspiracy to murder its illegal. Basically if your free speech is in direct causes to death your liable. I think this is already in practice in the US-UK.

I command you to jump off a bridge. Do you want to arrest me now for saying that?

Technically you would only be liable if he actually did it. If you were threatening and intimidating him into doing it then yea, you would definitely be held liable.

then you make laws against 'beating people' or blackmailing people into jumping off bridges, not the actual act of threating. you cant go charging every hot headed windbag, espically since most the time they cool off after a bit.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:34:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe in free speech and in censorship and that is no contradiction for me.

Anyone should be allowed to say what they want; in their own home, down the pub with their mates or whatever.

However I would think we are all in favour of some degree of censorship (except perhaps R_R). Unless you think it should be legal to download abusive child pornography then you advocate censorship.

If someone is given a public platform (such as a nationally distributed newspaper or major studio movie) or a position of authority (such as teacher, priest, law enforcer or community leader) then things like the kind of hate speech referred to in this thread should be censored and prosecutable.

Also http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:34:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:30:37 PM, innomen wrote:
Words have changed society, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. Words are indeed powerful and can propel us forward into an enlightenment or thrust us back to the dark ages. However, adults need to be able to handle the words in a free society, and practice restraint and propriety. Self censorship is the best avenue, and use the power of words freely and responsibly.

Without even a government's interference there are consequences we have with the words and language we choose. Those consequences need to be considered in what and how we say. Conversely we should judge a person by what they say, and how they say it. If someone says gays should be killed, i just think they are an idiot, and most others agree with me. They have no power over me and cannot hurt me, and i really don't care.
If a person spread hate using words, then he is harming a society and its people, and that leads to violence. This is a reaction to a non-physical action.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:36:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:31:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:29:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2010 1:25:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Resources required: In my Ideal world. Free speech is allowed but if used as contracting or as conspiracy to murder its illegal. Basically if your free speech is in direct causes to death your liable. I think this is already in practice in the US-UK.

I command you to jump off a bridge. Do you want to arrest me now for saying that?

Technically you would only be liable if he actually did it. If you were threatening and intimidating him into doing it then yea, you would definitely be held liable.

Yeah, but I went the same lengths as Hitler did. He simply said to his army, "kill Jews." He did not threaten or force them to. He is just one man, and the army could easily take on Hitler. He used a means of speech without force.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:38:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:36:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yeah, but I went the same lengths as Hitler did. He simply said to his army, "kill Jews." He did not threaten or force them to. He is just one man, and the army could easily take on Hitler. He used a means of speech without force.
With mighty words the commander commands; with mighty hands the soldier obeys.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:38:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:34:41 PM, feverish wrote:
I believe in free speech and in censorship and that is no contradiction for me.

Anyone should be allowed to say what they want; in their own home, down the pub with their mates or whatever.

However I would think we are all in favour of some degree of censorship (except perhaps R_R). Unless you think it should be legal to download abusive child pornography then you advocate censorship.

If someone is given a public platform (such as a nationally distributed newspaper or major studio movie) or a position of authority (such as teacher, priest, law enforcer or community leader) then things like the kind of hate speech referred to in this thread should be censored and prosecutable.

Also http://www.debate.org...

child pornography would not fall under free speech as it is not speech.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 1:41:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 1:31:02 PM, Mirza wrote:
Insults are always true? When has this been correct?

If someone insults you and it is true then it isn't slander.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown