Why do people think it's ever OK to censor others?

1. 60

   Josakposted 11 years ago

   At this point most people will be agreeing with me, most of us believe in the first amendment and freedom of speech but it seems in the last few years something has turned around and people are shying away from the reality of what that means. It means we must be OK with violence being portrayed in the media, it means we must be OK with pornography, it means we must be willing to allow people to watch real or faked snuff films, it means we must not legislate against holocaust deniers, it means we cannot punish people for looking at child pornography, have I lost most people at this point?
   
   I have read two hubs today calling for our freedoms to be curtailed, one says that we should ban all snuff films real or faked because he finds them distasteful the other claims that it should be OK to sue someone for being  offended by their public protest on public land. To loosely qoute Noam Chomsky
   "If freedom of speech applies only to things you agree with or find comfortable then Hitler and Goering believed in free speech too, they believed in free speech as far as things they agreed with, no, believing in free speech specifically means believing in peoples rights to say or film or make anything that they want (so long as the do not harm the rights of others in the process) and watch and or read anything they want, you do not have the right to stop them, you have the right not to read it or watch it"
   
   So do you believe in freedom of speech?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think there's a need to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom to commit offences. I was once invited by the police to a magistrates workshop looking at detection and sentencing of sex offenders online. There was one case where a sex offender, who was very interested in little boys, had seen all the material (child porn) on the net and was in search of new material.
      
      He met, through other contacts and a particular network, another man who assured him that he could guarantee him lots of new material, in exchange for new material containing pornographic images of little girls, the younger the better. He didn't have this kind of material, and certainly nothing new, so, he raped his daughter aged 6 years old and recorded the event. That's right, the man who wasn't particularly interested in little girls, raped his own daughter to obtain new material of little boys.
      
      If we didn't deny an individual the right to view this disgusting recording, who's rights would we be violating?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well first of that is horrible and the guy should never be let out of prison BUT anything can provide incentive to crime and it's a very bizarre set of consequences isn't it? Usually I guess people would just ask for money. I have a friend who in his youth read Marx and as consequence having been inspired headed up to Chiapas Mexico and joined the socialist guerrilla and committed all sorts of crimes, should we then ban Marx? The responsibility of the state is not to pre-punish all citizens for the potential crimes of a few, it's job is to punish people who harm others.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ask Tipper Gore what she thinks about censorship. And why Liberal colleges want to impose speech codes.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Tipper Gore certainly does not speak for all liberals and never did. She appealed more to the 1 Million Mom types.
         
         I had no idea what you meant by speech codes until I looked. Another thing that is not okay with all liberals. But some of the speech codes are common decency like allowing people to talk without being shouted down... while some are ridiculous.
         
         http://collegefreedom.blogspot.ca/2012/ … codes.html
         
         I don't think DePaul University can be classified as liberal but they also have speech codes.
         
         http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-luki … Chicago_IL
         
         It's not only liberal universities that have speech codes
         
         http://thefire.org/article/10717.html

         replyreport
         1. 60

            recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            This is good response - the issue of restricting freedoms that prevent other freedoms is the defining thing - without legislation along the lines of speech codes black people would not have had any voice at all in recent American History.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Despite the Democrats best efforts to silence the voices of black people they won their civil rights.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Dude... why are you trying to turn this into a partisan thing? I regretfully vote for the Dems and I am a strong leftist and I started this thread, the whole "the left hates free speech" thing is bull.

                  replyreport
2. 60

   recommend1posted 11 years ago

   I was a fervent believer in free speech - and, in the days where a person was accountable for what they said, it was champion.  However, with the net and the controlling of the media there is no longer any such thing. 
   
   If we were standing in front of our peers, or in our society, and telling people face to face what we want to make free then the lies would be harder to make, the absences in the information harder to justify and unnacceptable things like pornography would not proliferate.

   replyreport
3. 64

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   Yeah, and I wrote a hub about it that you apparently have a problem with! Have you changed your mind or have I missed something?

   replyreport
4. 64

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   I think that was you Josak. Along with that Communist dude.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't remember the particular instance which is not to say it's not the case, the only context I can imagine this happening in is if I was arguing that calling for violence should be a crime because it infringes on the right to security of others. Maybe that's what you are remembering? I am firm believer that everything should be legal unless it violates the basic rights of another.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I think your point was that there are times when freedom of speech can be curtailed for the good of the populace, and was against moral absolutes.
         
         I would argue that we should allow people to call for violence as this can easily be misconstrued and people might be prevented from calling for reasonable self-defence.

         replyreport
5. 92

   peeplesposted 11 years ago

   We live in a world where people think that others should only believe what they do. It's funny how so many people think they are the person who should decide if others should get to do something.
   Now the whole snuff thing, I don't think people should be able to kill people, but that type of snuff film is mostly a myth, never been proven to even exist and all the other snuff films that are legal aren't real snuff. So who am I to say someone can't get off on a person looking dead or acting like she's being murdered. It's none of my business what people do in their home.
   Do I think other's should be "free" to cause pain on others? NO! Child porn hurts someone, murdering people (obvious here) hurts someone. As long as what we are doing isn't causing pain to others everyone should mind their own business. (I know, crazy concept)

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Spot on!

      replyreport
6. 60

   carterchasposted 11 years ago

   It is amazing that the people who call for censorship usually do so in the name of freedom. 
   
   One example of this was the blacklisting of people in the 1950 for their political views. 
   
   Some people make the argument, "You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater."
   
   Those people usually take the quote out of context.
   
   When the Supreme Court used the above quote, it was talking about advocating breaking the law (in this case, the person was advocating dodging the draft during W.W.I).  The person WAS entitled to protest against the war, though.
   
   I practice censorship with my money, I don't spend it on movies that go against my values.

   replyreport
7. 58

   Dame Scribeposted 11 years ago

   Today's world has greatly changed along with a loss of a shared vision in the definition of some terms. Society itself have to be the one's to stand up and protect their rights. Canada had some racist's doing a protest of one kind or another a few weeks back but along came some anti-racist protester's who stood up to them and literally chased them (racist supporters) away. Awesome sight I'd imagine but other's will have to take the same actions, to prevent the 'glorifying' of distasteful actions of others. Apathy (inaction) does no good for people over all.

   replyreport
8. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   I don't think actual snuff films are freedom of speech, I think they are murder.
   
   Freedoms are rights, and rights end when they severely effect someone else's right--such as the right to life.
   
   Providing a profit or popularity motive for murder is sufficiently right-infringing that it outweighs the right to make such a movie or watch it.
   
   If the movie is faked, then it is fiction and so protected. But the director should expect to need a third party guarantee that no one was harmed.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree to an extent, there is a difference between the two crimes however, I think knowingly providing material aid to a criminal activity should be a crime (I believe it already is) but not viewing it, most of these things are free on the web as I understand it.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Viewing it creates demand and thus encourages the activity.  It is only one step away from specifically asking someone to commit murder.
         
         And I don't believe they are on any sites.  "Real" snuff is basically and urban legend.
         
         Read examples would be more like teen mobbing which is done for status gains from posting the video.

         replyreport
9. 62

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   When we are talking about Freedom of Speech we should be talking about it in the context of rational and mature individuals. To allow any crackpot or delusional people to pollute the airwaves with their radical viewpoints rarely bring about good results-Radio shock jocks.
   
   They may not be snuffed film but many people have seen people being beheaded by militant groups overseas on the Internet and in some cases on television.
   
   One can use Freedom of Speech as an excuse not to get involved but make no mistake there are people who are charismatic that have the ability to draw people into their insane reality for example pastor Jim Jones, David Koresh-(Waco) etc. someone convinced all of those people in Heaven Gate to commit suicide.
   
   I personally believe we do not take that right which we call Freedom of Speech as actually being serious but it's serious enough if we are a mature person we most likely would not want to hear someone in every other word cursing around our young children. In spite of Freedom of Speech we would not want people degrading our mothers or family members with their lackadaisical foul mouth.
   
   Years ago television broadcasting was sensitive to the public, meaning before they would show something that would be considered un-tasteful or shocking they would present a warning to the general public but nowadays if they don't mind seeing someone's brain exposed they don't mind exposing it to you with out any warning.
   
   I do not find Freedom of Speech a license simply to run off at the mouth.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am a committed leftist I find people like Glenn Beck to be disgusting and dishonest but I would never advocate them being taken off the air, freedom of speech is indeed a license to run off at the mouth, it is precisely what it says it is freedom of speech, you are free to speak as you please.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Actually you are wrong-reading what it says about Freedom of-Speech does place limits on how Freedom of Speech can be used.
         
         Let's test what you just said.
         
         Let's say a new couple moved into the neighborhood and while they're at your home the husband says to his wife "darling why don't we rent a room at the motel tonight." Based on your interpretation then it is perfectly OK for you to tell this man's wife the same thing?
         
         You see a six-year-old kid on the curb cry and since this pie irritates you then you are perfectly free to spew out several vulgar and abusive language?
         
         I believe people need to engage their brain before they open their mouth when it comes to Freedom of Speech because we have a number of people out there especially on the radio who don't seem to know how.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            All of the examples you mention should be legal, are they moral? No, but that is a different point.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I would agree with you - except that I would support the censorship of those who are proven to be continually lying to manipulate public opinion  - then all the political parties would be screwed !

         replyreport
   2. 64

      innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We don't have freedom of speech so we can talk about the whether. We have freedom of speech so as to give each opinion, lunatic or not, their chance. But think of it this way. I have the freedom of speech, but you don't necessarily have to give me a pulpit. That same freedom gives you the right to tell me that I'm talking nonsense.
      
      If you are arguing that freedom of speech is negotiable, you don't believe in it at all and what you're actually doing is advocating censorship. And who gets to decide who's lying? Our lying governments?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The pulpit is given by the media - and the few who control the media decide what everyone sees and does not see.  This is the biggest abuse of whatever academically argued freedoms of speech might otherwise be available to people.

         replyreport
10. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

    I think at the very least Freedom of Speech should relate to expressions (art, language etc) not types of interactions, crimes etc.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       And who decides what is what? The Nazi's created a true art standard hat all art had to met to be classified as such is that what you are suggesting we do? because otherwise a snuff film is technically art.

       replyreport
11. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

    I think freedom to openly sell films of crimes would immediately produce a huge incentive that people in the world would happily fill.  That's why we don't allow it.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Have you seen the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination? most people have, that license already exists and yet we are not flooded with real snuff films.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          So, what do you think of a site that allows videos of people torturing animals and also posted a video reputedly showing a recent murder that happened in Montreal?

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             I think they should self censor and do the respectful thing to the family of the diseased and take down the film, I don't think the state has any place to interfere there other than catching the guy who did it which it appears they already have.

             replyreport
12. 78

    kirstenblogposted 11 years ago

    If we censor others how are we supposed to spot the ignorant, the hate filled and other people best avoided? You can only really know a person if you know they are free to be themselves without restriction.
    
    I personally value being able to spot a person who I would find distasteful easily so I can avoid them more easily.
    
    Basically, ban hate and those who hate will dress it up as love, more dangerous imo.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Exactly. I'm sure many people are grateful toward Rick Santorum for being a bigot openly so that we know not to vote for him.

       replyreport