Page 1 of 3
Actual thread intended for discussion of censorship
Posted: 4/3/2006, 6:52 pm
by mosaik
Not a thread about the "War since 04" between CZ and the CM.
Did you like that? "War since 04"?
Moving on. First let's repost Chris' comments which actually do have merit and should and can be debated:
when if ever is this appropriate? was voltaire right, or is protecting yourself from offensive ideas more important than discussing them/being exposed to them?
should people be allowed to speak freely or is it more important to shield ourselves from taboos etc.?
obviously i do not support censorship at all at any time in any form. i should say however that this stance applies only to any and all forms of public discussion, as i could see the merits in, for instance, the edmonton journal refusing to allow me to run a full page picture of my balls in their centerfold.
for those of you who do support it, i'd like to ask a couple of questions: it is my belief that censorship limits growth within a community and creates ignorance. it is my belief that it is better to be familiar with offensive ideas because it allows for further understanding of them, and moreover, an increased ability to debunk them. furthermore, history has shown us that ideas that at one time may be considered offensive (the world is round!) may one day be considered brilliant.
how then, do you justify it's use?
I have just one thing to add. Please nobody use the old "Should we protect your right to freedom of speech if that entails running into a crowded theatre and yelling fire?" because in that example is the act of creating fraudulent panic and not the word fire that should be outlawed. Better to say "do not pretend that the cinema is on fire when it is not" than to limit free speech.
If there are any advocates of censorship anywhere, i'd like to hear your thoughts. Even if you only support censorship on a message board. I'm not trying to change the rules here, only debate the merits behind them.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 6:59 pm
by starvingeyes
good luck broheme.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 7:29 pm
by nelison
I know that in this situation it is not the fault of the speaker but rather the person that is offended, but is it possible to say that there are times when freedom of speech does more harm than good to the point where it causes death? Especially when one person's comment can be taken as an attack from an entire segment of the population. So I guess it just gets to a point where freedom of speech is fine, but perhaps it shouldn't always be championned...
Posted: 4/3/2006, 8:05 pm
by closeyoureyes
I am a proponent of free speech, and as long as it doesn't implicitly or explicitly suggest violence, fly at 'er.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 8:10 pm
by starvingeyes
what about good violence?
Posted: 4/3/2006, 8:38 pm
by closeyoureyes
hahahaha. oh Chris, the mods will be angry!
Posted: 4/3/2006, 8:44 pm
by starvingeyes
fuck 'em. the mods on this forum are openly biased and corrupt and until they stop me from saying so i shall.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 8:45 pm
by closeyoureyes
It'll be ironic if the new censorship thread gets locked, won't it be?
Posted: 4/3/2006, 8:49 pm
by faninor
Chris's post does make a good point about why censoring ideas or opinions isn't great. But that doesn't address censorship as a whole, only censorship of ideas and opinions.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 8:51 pm
by starvingeyes
right, i said i don't neccessarily disagree with it on the whole, just when it comes to public discussion.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 8:53 pm
by starvingeyes
closeyoureyes wrote:It'll be ironic if the new censorship thread gets locked, won't it be?
it'll be hilarious either way. if they don't lock this one i think that's pretty conclusive proof of their grudge against me, that they abuse their power and that they are biased.
and if they do, well, that shows that they refuse to allow discussion of their rules.
nice place you guys got here. saddest part is i came here to find out if corey reno et al were still around, but i got the heads up that moderating practices have driven all the good debaters away. that sucks. kinda funny when you think about it; if it weren't for this fight with the mods i probably wouldn't even be here anymore, hahaha! all they had to do was not get in my face and i'd be gone, just like they want!
them coming after me has actually given me a reason to stay! now THAT is funny.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 9:16 pm
by Olp_waited
speaking of our freedom of speech, I was talking to this girl at work tonight, and she said that they are trying to push a law that makes us not to be able to say our bad ideas of the President. I am really starting to get annoyed with this Bush.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 9:17 pm
by faninor
starvingeyes wrote:right, i said i don't neccessarily disagree with it on the whole, just when it comes to public discussion.
What do you mean by public discussion?
And is it possible to censor discussion without making it impossible to convey any single opinion or belief?
Posted: 4/3/2006, 9:17 pm
by starvingeyes
olp_waited i would appreciate any more information you can find on this.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 9:24 pm
by Olp_waited
I'll try, but when we were discussing it, we both agreed on the fact that congress would probably not allow it, but then again, I think Bush is a very corrupt man, and will do anything any way.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 10:04 pm
by starvingeyes
faninor wrote:starvingeyes wrote:right, i said i don't neccessarily disagree with it on the whole, just when it comes to public discussion.
What do you mean by public discussion?
And is it possible to censor discussion without making it impossible to convey any single opinion or belief?
any discussion that's open to the public. private stuff is your business.
and no i don't think it is. as such i don't agree with censorship.
olp_waited - i agree and honestly would not be that surprised to see a law of this nature pass.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 10:16 pm
by faninor
starvingeyes wrote:faninor wrote:starvingeyes wrote:right, i said i don't neccessarily disagree with it on the whole, just when it comes to public discussion.
What do you mean by public discussion?
And is it possible to censor discussion without making it impossible to convey any single opinion or belief?
any discussion that's open to the public. private stuff is your business.
and no i don't think it is. as such i don't agree with censorship.
Oh, okay. I think that it is possible to censor what people write without stopping them from expressing their ideas, which I suppose is why I'm not entirely opposed to censorship. But in general I don't agree with censoring particular ideas, beliefs, information.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 10:19 pm
by Olp_waited
And then everything I believed in this country would die!
My history teacher once said, once you give the gov't power to do one thing, they will keep using that power to do more.
We were talking about how the gov't wants to look at what people at browsing at online for "terrorists and people who visit childporn" and if we filter those people, how long will it be until we filter other sites and limiting privacy.
Posted: 4/3/2006, 10:19 pm
by Lando
faninor wrote:What do you mean by pubic discussion?
Now that's what I'm talkin' about!
Posted: 4/3/2006, 10:36 pm
by starvingeyes
Olp_waited wrote:And then everything I believed in this country would die!
My history teacher once said, once you give the gov't power to do one thing, they will keep using that power to do more.
We were talking about how the gov't wants to look at what people at browsing at online for "terrorists and people who visit childporn" and if we filter those people, how long will it be until we filter other sites and limiting privacy.
dude, that history teacher is going to save your life. listen to everything he says because he is right on the fucking money. question authority man, you have to!