Censorship

[funyun]

In the United States far too much emphasis is placed on "personal rights" at the expense of the general good.

There is not enough emphasis. Who dictates what is in the best interest of the people?

I find the idea of being called unpatriotic for criticizing your president somewhat absurd. It better we be critical and informed than to follow blindly like a herd of sheep.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Theodore Roosevelt

 

[transientlife]

There is not enough emphasis. Who dictates what is in the best interest of the people?



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Being attacked for critiquing the president and being encouraged not to...might as well live in a dictatorship if that's what people want. You know?

 

[MKalashnikov]

So if you want to discuss a subject that isn't that of the thread topic, create a new thread. It's not hard. I'm sure you can do it.

You don't get to decide what is and what is not relevant to a particular thread. I brought up a point about the founders and you quickly chimed in with "irrelevant". No one made you king, and I am not starting new threads for topics that this thread branches into. Don't like it? Put me on ignore.

 

[The Bellman]

You don't get to decide what is and what is not relevant to a particular thread. I brought up a point about the founders and you quickly chimed in with "irrelevant". No one made you king, and I am not starting new threads for topics that this thread branches into. Don't like it? Put me on ignore.

Yes, I do. We all do. If we find a topic irrelevant to the thread, we don't answer it. The person who raised the topic is then free to start another thread dedicated to that topic. If for some unknown reason they don't want to do so, it's their own fault. Endlessly complaining about someone who doesn't want to derail a thread only makes a person look childish.

 

[MKalashnikov]

Yes, I do. We all do. If we find a topic irrelevant to the thread, we don't answer it.

I am not going to stop asking the question, and you are not going to tell me what is on topic and what isn't.

 

[The Bellman]

I am not going to stop asking the question, and you are not going to tell me what is on topic and what isn't.

If you don't stop asking the question, it will just be ignored. And I and others will continue to tell you if you are off topic. If you don't like it, leave.

 

[The Bellman]

In an effort to get the thread back on track...

There are only two possible reasons which make censorship valid in any way, in my opinion. Those two are:

- when the information to be censored is promoting or exploiting an illegal activity. The obvious candidate here is child pornography.

- when the information to be censored would/could lead to harm of "innocents". This is a more difficult area. It would include yelling "fire" in a theatre that isn't on fire, for example. It would also include some "hate speech". However, I don't think people's opinions should be censored. For example, I think it should be legal for me to say "All Jews are stupid" or "All white people are lazy". However, Moving from there to "We should exterminate all [insert particular group]" is more problematic, as it is conceivable that recommending/suggesting such could well lead to harm to that group. Another candidate for this category would be things like lists of intelligence operatives in another country. Publication of such a list would be likely to lead to harm to those operatives, as well as more general harm to the country whose operatives they are (since, presumably, they are operatives to guard against harm coming to their country).

Obviously, the above two categories aren't black and white - there is always going to be some gray. However, I can't see any room in either of them for censoring something because some people are likely to be offended.

 

[MKalashnikov]

If you don't stop asking the question, it will just be ignored.

That is what the ignore feature is for.

If you don't like it, leave.

This cuts to the heart of the matter. This is what you want more than anything else.

What was that about Censorship?

 

[BarbB]

In an effort to get the thread back on track...

There are only two possible reasons which make censorship valid in any way, in my opinion. Those two are:

- when the information to be censored is promoting or exploiting an illegal activity. The obvious candidate here is child pornography.

- when the information to be censored would/could lead to harm of "innocents". This is a more difficult area. It would include yelling "fire" in a theatre that isn't on fire, for example. It would also include some "hate speech". However, I don't think people's opinions should be censored. For example, I think it should be legal for me to say "All Jews are stupid" or "All white people are lazy". However, Moving from there to "We should exterminate all [insert particular group]" is more problematic, as it is conceivable that recommending/suggesting such could well lead to harm to that group. Another candidate for this category would be things like lists of intelligence operatives in another country. Publication of such a list would be likely to lead to harm to those operatives, as well as more general harm to the country whose operatives they are (since, presumably, they are operatives to guard against harm coming to their country).

Obviously, the above two categories aren't black and white - there is always going to be some gray. However, I can't see any room in either of them for censoring something because some people are likely to be offended.

What about censorship of the Ten Commandments. Neither of your arguments above apply?

 

[The Bellman]

That is what the ignore feature is for.


This cuts to the heart of the matter. This is what you want more than anything else.

Wrong. Again.

 

[The Bellman]

What about censorship of the Ten Commandments. Neither of your arguments above apply?

What about it? I've never heard of them being censored.

 

[Archivist]

What about censorship of the Ten Commandments. Neither of your arguments above apply?

I presume that you are referring to the removal of the Ten Commandments from some public places. That is actually a question of Government Endorsement of Religion rather than of Censorship.

 

[Beastt]

Has anyone else noticed that encouragement offered to those suggesting they are losing their faith seems to result in the thread or at least the post vanishing? It seems to occur even when the post is made in the "for all members" areas. Coincidence? Server glitch?

One wonders.

 

[creep]

censorship started off as a good idea; 'lets not say that, cos it'll make the womenfolk faint' but that was a long time ago. now we all think of ourselves as intelligent, thoughtful people, capable of grasping the harsh realities of life.
so why cant i describe somebody as being black, without wondering if somebody is going to flay me for saying it? it hasnt gotten that bad over here, but it could.
censorship can be good. nobody needs to see another human being gutted on live tv, but on the other hand, any view that seems to be counter productive, to whatever movement, is quickly silenced.
if any of you have read 1984 by george orwell, you'll understand. if you haven't, then read 1984 by george orwell.

remember: the things you see on tv are happening to other people, very very far away,so as not to have a direct impact on your viewing plasure

 

[Arikay]

Creep: If you haven't read them yet, you might like "The Giver" and "Fahrenheit 451"

 

[creep]

RE: NEEWLAMB QUOTE: the only reason i could think of the government censoring the comandments is because they don't want to appear partisan or bias to or against a religion.
but whether or not the govetnment realises it, they DO endorse it.
america was founded by emigrating purists who believed in religion being rooted in the scriptures, and rejected many of the reforms of the anglican church (another form of censorship i guess, not liking the current events, so moving somewhere where they don't apply).
The pledge of allegiance 'one nation under god' makes no room for hinduism.
but in the modern day, everybody accepts that. its new things that show favouritism that people find objectionable-'well, its been carved on that wall for a hundred years,so its ok, but dont go putting any new ones around.'

so for censorships sake, lets all stick our fingers in our ears and go blaatheblaatheblaathe anytime somebody says something we don't like

 

[Arikay]

Just thought I would point out that The "under god" part of the pledge is a new addition and not part of the original pledge.

 

[creep]

my mistake. so,.. i suppose if one wanted to make an issue out of it they could argue it as a new addition, and try and get it removed because of it being religiously exclusive or some such thing.
(hypothetically)