|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 14, 2021 0:33:45 GMT
... or do you think that truth should out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Aug 14, 2021 0:40:44 GMT
Some forms of censorship is good.
There are good and bad things about censorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Aug 14, 2021 0:57:20 GMT
The thing about censorship is that the people being protected don't know what they're being protected from so it's an unstable practice. I think it's better to know information in general but some truths and some experiences are hard to handle. If you try to hide some grand truth or controversial work of art for too long then you risk a worse outcome than if you just let the information out there and let people know about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Aug 14, 2021 1:44:19 GMT
Under what rationale would any citizen of any nation agree that censorship is a good thing? Sorry, I think for myself. Let me see it ad I'll decide.
And yes, I realize I'm American and we have the Bill of Rights free speech protection which has most likely influenced my thinking and that of most Americans.
I know for example that many people want hate speech censored. I agree with the American Supreme Court that hate speech is protected free speech. I've learned many non-Americans take umbrage to that.
But when you speak of censorship, what is being censored?
|
|
Mia
Sophomore

@ophelia
Posts: 123
|
Post by Mia on Aug 14, 2021 3:38:45 GMT
It's a slippery slope, as we're seeing now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 14, 2021 7:45:06 GMT
No, I don't agree with the govt censoring its citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Aug 14, 2021 10:44:30 GMT
No, censorship is cancer.
I'm against censorship of any kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 14, 2021 14:24:15 GMT
Of course we are all against censorship but does something being censored mean that it's the truth? Is automatically labelling something as fake news a type of censorship?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 14, 2021 14:40:45 GMT
Agreed Stammerhead , but if something is automatically censored how does one know what is being hidden and for why? An explanation can of course be given by the censors, but how true would such an explanation be? Can the censors be trusted? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 14, 2021 15:57:10 GMT
Agreed Stammerhead , but if something is automatically censored how does one know what is being hidden and for why? An explanation can of course be given by the censors, but how true would such an explanation be? Can the censors be trusted? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? A few years ago someone who believes in free speech removed my name from Wikipedia articles as part of a trolling campaign so you can’t even trust those who advocate free speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 14, 2021 16:13:11 GMT
I wonder if George Orwell ever really thought his imaginations would come true, because it certainly seems they have
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 14, 2021 21:31:41 GMT
Agreed Stammerhead , but if something is automatically censored how does one know what is being hidden and for why? An explanation can of course be given by the censors, but how true would such an explanation be? Can the censors be trusted? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Aug 14, 2021 23:25:31 GMT
No. Off the top of my head I cant think of a situation where it would be good.
|
|
|
|
Post by ᵗʰᵉᵃᵘˣᵖʰᵒᵘ on Aug 16, 2021 10:33:11 GMT
Yeah, where it’s warranted — like nasty stuff that vulnerable and impressionable kids can be potentially exposed to. Or grisly photos, like Kobe’s corpse, which I’d lowkey be open to looking at, just out of morbid curiosity.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Aug 16, 2021 14:27:20 GMT
Censorship can be useful for NSFW or sensitive content whereas media censorship is a disservice to its viewers.
|
|
|
|
Post by langdona on Aug 17, 2021 6:04:05 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by ellynmacg on Aug 17, 2021 23:03:40 GMT
It depends on what you mean by censorship. A few years back, a publishing company rejected Brett Easton Ellis' novel, American Psycho--and a great outcry arose against the publishers for their "censorship." The company claimed that, after reviewing Ellis' manuscript, they had decided against it. Eventually, another company picked up the rejected work, and in the meantime, Ellis had garnered tons of free publicity. Do I agree that the first company was censoring American Psycho? No. They were a corporation that decided that the manuscript was "unsuitable for its needs," and they were entirely within their rights. They were under no obligation whatsoever to publish Ellis' writing. Now, their decision would have counted as censorship if: (1) They had rejected AP under governmental orders; or(2) They had used their influence to prevent any other company from publishing AP. Since (as far as I know) neither of the above conditions applied, no censorship was involved. But do I approve of the government stepping in and saying, "You can't print that!"? Only in the case that the material in question had been reviewed by a non-partisan body and judged to endanger national security. However, there is a rule concerning "prior restraint": 
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Oct 31, 2021 16:42:22 GMT
I'm against censorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Oct 31, 2021 21:25:48 GMT
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is what the Constitution says about Free Speech. Government cannot abridge Free Speech. That means any government – state, county, city, whatever. While it is fine and noble to be against censorship, be careful that you are not actually preventing Free Speech by doing so. That you are talking about preventing others from speaking. It is a fairly common occurrence if, for example, someone invites a controversial speaker to their campus. The University then cancels the speaking engagement so it has to be moved to another location. Advocates of the speaker scream about the curbing of Free Speech. But is isn’t. The University exists under its own rules, whether private or public, so if a speaker may cause a disruption or a demonstration, it is the University administration who has all the Rights to permit or to cancel the engagement. When our most recent Ex-President had his Twitter accounts first suspended and then deleted, his supporters lost their collective minds. “There is no Free Speech anymore!” Again, it is the company who has the rights here. In order to get a Twitter account a person must agree to a Terms and Conditions contract. Our cheating Ex violated his contract with his election lies so got his account jettisoned. If you disagree about the canceled speaker or the Twitter deletion then you yourself have the Free Speech right to try to persuade the decisions makers to your viewpoint, including peaceful demonstrations. That is how Free Speech works in our democracy. It is not easy to be simply anti- or pro-censorship. Things can get complicated but a basic rule-of-thumb is to ask, “Did a government entity pass a law, regulation, or ordinance that prohibits you from any kind of legally available print or media?” See the excellent post above from ellynmacg who discusses other examples of what is not censorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Oct 31, 2021 21:29:32 GMT
Agreed Stammerhead , but if something is automatically censored how does one know what is being hidden and for why? An explanation can of course be given by the censors, but how true would such an explanation be? Can the censors be trusted? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The answer is: private corporations cannot do what they want if it is harmful so government regulation on behalf of the citizenry is never, ever censorship. For their part, Corporation leadership and public relations have every Free Speech right to defend their actions even if the defense are lies. There should be a third button. Or maybe even a fourth.
|
|