censorship

[atoborch]

I believe this is a current here and just in general i have a position and would like some feedback

def(for clear and educational debate):

censorship : deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances

Criteria(how should we look at this issue)

freedom, that act of censorship voilates this due to its inhibting nature

Value(what is the prime value when it come to speach and freedom)

knowaldge, humans are constantly trying to learn more about their sroundings and the world around them, this is the most unique part of being a human the ablity to learn and aplly that knowlage

Burnden(what needs to be proven for cenorship to be not allowed in most if not all cases)

1)prove that cenroship violates both the Criteria and Value laid forth
2)prove somesantial harm of Cenroship
3)prove that with out cenroship the world would in some way be better under either a net-benifical(NB) pardigm or Cost Beifite Anaylas pardigm

Observations(things i can substanate or view)

Ob 1) Cenorship exsits

A) This is going to be a given

B) Goverment Agencys Cenor(a few examples)

1) FCC

2) FDA

C) Private groups cenor

Ob 2) Cenorship fundamentally robs persons of freedom of expression

A) Cenorship limits ablity to speak under use of fear or arrest

B) Cenorship removes thoughts and ideas from the Market Place of Ideas with out MPI there would not no fourm for Knowladge nor the discovery of freedom with in MPI

C) FoE allows for the growth of the MPI which allows for better understanding of freedom, expanding the ablity to understand the human condition



Have fun

 

[Danhalen]

I have to ask you, what "right" do you think you actually have to anything?

 

[atoborch]

I have to ask you, what "right" do you think you actually have to anything?

1) I'm a person with a unique voice that should be heard for the sake of the MPI
2) i have the right to use my discorse as action to insight change both real and in the pradigms of others minds
3) to be heard even when my view is either unpopular or not wantted
4) to speak freely and with out fear of having my words

 

[Danhalen]

1) I'm a person with a unique voice that should be heard for the sake of the MPI
2) i have the right to use my discorse as action to insight change both real and in the pradigms of others minds
3) to be heard even when my view is either unpopular or not wantted
4) to speak freely and with out fear of having my words

Ok. You have defined what kind of person you are, but what right do you have for anything? How do you justify the right to anything? To say that you have rights because you do, is the same as me censoring you because I do. If you have a right to say something, then why don't I have the right to censor you?

 

[atoborch]

read above untill you mitage my orginal case you can't say you have that right

 

[invisible trousers]

I see the Food & Drug Administration, censorship, and cost-benefit analysis. I don't know what's going on here.

 

[Danhalen]

read above untill you mitage my orginal case you can't say you have that right

Why should I cave to your premise? You seem to think that censorship is not a right, but free speech is. I am asking you why you feel that you have any rights at all, let alone freedom of expression. You have not yet demonstrated that freedom of expression is a right. Now, if you are going to arbitrarily declare that you have a right to freedom of expression, I am going to arbitrarily declare tha tI have the right to censor you. If you want to have a battle of who can be the most arbitrary, I assure you that I am one of the most pig headed people you will ever meet. I will not give up until you do first. Defend your premise, or give it up.

 

[atoborch]

Why should I cave to your premise? You seem to think that censorship is not a right, but free speech is. I am asking you why you feel that you have any rights at all, let alone freedom of expression. You have not yet demonstrated that freedom of expression is a right. Now, if you are going to arbitrarily declare that you have a right to freedom of expression, I am going to arbitrarily declare tha tI have the right to censor you. If you want to have a battle of who can be the most arbitrary, I assure you that I am one of the most pig headed people you will ever meet. I will not give up until you do first. Defend your premise, or give it up.

even i have not established it as a right you never migate the fact there is a benificall reason why not to have censorship at all,and to have free speech

 

[Danhalen]

even i have not established it as a right you never migate the fact there is a benificall reason why not to have censorship at all,and to have free speech

Is that true, or is that just another arbitrary thought you have had. Try to substantiate something. It's hard to understand your position if you aren't grounded in anything. Please stop making assertions with out backing them up. The count of unsubstantiated assertions is now at 2 for you. Do you care to back up your statements?

 

[atoborch]

if its hard to understand maybe this makes more sence

up, down, right, left, red, blue, shoe, i have meaning

 

[z3ro]

I have to step in here and help. Rights are given by the power above us; at work, I have the right to go to the bathroom when I want, but I don't have the right to leave in the middle of the day and not come back. I have the ability, but not the right, lest I be fired. The country works the same way; I follow the rights I have, or I am punished. I can speak out against the government, but if I kill someone while doing so, I can be imprisoned.

The argument that atoborch is making, I think, is that a society without censorship benefits more than one with censorship. The argument will have to be largely philosophical in nature, as I doubt that there is much hard data about benefits of censorship in countries.

There. Hopefully I've paved the way for a better discussion.

 

[atoborch]

I have to step in here and help. Rights are given by the power above us; at work, I have the right to go to the bathroom when I want, but I don't have the right to leave in the middle of the day and not come back. I have the ability, but not the right, lest I be fired. The country works the same way; I follow the rights I have, or I am punished. I can speak out against the government, but if I kill someone while doing so, I can be imprisoned.

The argument that atoborch is making, I think, is that a society without censorship benefits more than one with censorship. The argument will have to be largely philosophical in nature, as I doubt that there is much hard data about benefits of censorship in countries.

There. Hopefully I've paved the way for a better discussion.

they only thing you paved the way for was to further prove that it is near impossable to have a coget debate on CF

 

[Cerberus~]

I have to ask you, what "right" do you think you actually have to anything?

My 12 gauge and my fists give me that right.

 

[Danhalen]

I have to step in here and help. Rights are given by the power above us; at work, I have the right to go to the bathroom when I want, but I don't have the right to leave in the middle of the day and not come back. I have the ability, but not the right, lest I be fired.

Are rights given? If you are allowed to do something, isn't that a privelage?

The country works the same way; I follow the rights I have, or I am punished. I can speak out against the government, but if I kill someone while doing so, I can be imprisoned.

I think that you mean to follow laws, not rights. For example, in the Declaration of Independance it states that among our inalienable rights is pursuit of happiness. What if your pursuit of happiness involved blowing up public buildings? That would be illegal. You would have excersised your "right", but you would have broken the law. Therefore, you have a privelage to the pursuit of happiness, that is provided for by the government, but you can loose that privelage should you break the law. A right can not be taken away.

The argument that atoborch is making, I think, is that a society without censorship benefits more than one with censorship. The argument will have to be largely philosophical in nature, as I doubt that there is much hard data about benefits of censorship in countries.

He has not made an argument. He has made an assertion with no supporting argument. It's not that I disagree with him, it's that he has not defended his assertion.

There. Hopefully I've paved the way for a better discussion.

You have made an argument. Therefore I have participated in your argument. I hope we can continue in this vein.

 

[Danhalen]

My 12 gauge and my fists give me that right.

I agree with you However, my powers of persuasion over the masses will control your fists, and take your 12 guage away. I will then exert my righs over yours. It seems that might does not make right, it makes privelage easier to attain. Government always trumps "right".

 

[Cerberus~]

I agree with you However, my powers of persuasion over the masses will control your fists, and take your 12 guage away. I will then exert my righs over yours. It seems that might does not make right, it makes privelage easier to attain. Government always trumps "right".

Except, there are a lot more rednecks out there like me with shotguns.

 

[z3ro]

Are rights given? If you are allowed to do something, isn't that a privelage?

I think rights are a privilage. They are given, and can be taken away.

I think that you mean to follow laws, not rights. For example, in the Declaration of Independance it states that among our inalienable rights is pursuit of happiness. What if your pursuit of happiness involved blowing up public buildings? That would be illegal. You would have excersised your "right", but you would have broken the law. Therefore, you have a privelage to the pursuit of happiness, that is provided for by the government, but you can loose that privelage should you break the law. A right can not be taken away.

But the man in prison, can he still pursue happiness? He's locked up, and can't blow up anymore buildings. His pursuit is done. Have we not taken away his right? You said yourself he lost the privelage, but not the right. What's the difference?

He has not made an argument. He has made an assertion with no supporting argument. It's not that I disagree with him, it's that he has not defended his assertion.

You have made an argument. Therefore I have participated in your argument. I hope we can continue in this vein.

Thanks, I agree.

 

[Danhalen]

I think rights are a privilage. They are given, and can be taken away.

With this, I completely agree.

But the man in prison, can he still pursue happiness? He's locked up, and can't blow up anymore buildings. His pursuit is done. Have we not taken away his right? You said yourself he lost the privelage, but not the right. What's the difference?

I never said that he lost his "right", because I do not believe that he ever had any. What he has is a privelage. I have a hang up with the word "right". I think that we all have privelages as individuals, rights are granted by the governing body. What ever the government has determined to be our rights is what we get. So, I guess my definition of a "right" is, a "privelage" that is afforded to all people under a specific government.

So, to the original assertion, how can we have a "right" to complete freedom of expression if the government does not agree with what we have to say? Since the government grants us our privelages, and calls them "rights", they have also have the ability to curtail them as we have allowed them to.