Is censorship moral?

[Unknown Soldier]

I'd define "censorship" as the effort to silence speech, written or oral, and to hide away images that are seen to be offensive. The outward rationale for such censorship is that some speech is harmful if heard or read and some images are harmful if seen. The censors are invariably more powerful than those whom they censor, and so censorship results essentially from whomever can apply the greater force. In other words, censorship is "might is right." Censorship is often a tool for those who want to impose their ideological, political, or religious views on others in the guise of morality.

So my own opinion is that censorship is immoral, and I see it as doing far more harm than what harm it supposedly prevents.

 

[steve_bank]

A reaction to recent events.?

What is morality and how does censorship fit into a moral frame?

We all have freedom of speech and association in COTUS.

That does not mean you have a right to come into my home or busness and speak freely about anything. You can stay on the street and freely rant/speak as you please within legal limits.

Limits being things like inciting a riot, verbal abuse, criminal conspiracy and so on.

The current political issue govt is dealing with is whether or not private plaforms have a right to allow all speech whatever it may be, as for example with Twitter and Musk.

A private platform like this one has every right to limit speech. Go to a Christian site and agessvely argue theology and you might get banned. That is their priviledge.

Moral codes imply consequences for actions and speech. If you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire and someone is trampled to death as people flee are you morally, civilly, and legally responsible for your actions?

The short answer is yes. You bet you are. You will be sued by the family and arested by police.

So, if you promote rape and child sex abuse on a net plaorm are you resonsble if someone acts on your words? Again yes.

The current legal issue is if platforms allow such speech are they liable for the consequences of speech on the platform.

Culturally, socially, and legally there is very little in the way of limits of speech and behaviour.

In recent news an internet figure said he was giving away video games at at location. It turmed into a riot and both citizens and police were injured. He was arrsted.

Here in Seattle we have a long sanding issue with hate speech against Asians leading to assualts. Is such hate speech moral? Should there be limits on public ethnic hate speech?

I live on the edge of Chinatown and walk through. My neighbors in my buildng are Chinese. Should I be able to walk through my building and Chinatown mouthing Chinese hate speech?

That is a yes no quetion.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What is morality and how does censorship fit into a moral frame?

In the context of the OP morality is free thought and the opportunity to express those free thoughts either verbally or visually.

We all have freedom of speech and association in COTUS.

We really don't have freedom of speech because speech is controlled by whoever has the means to control speech.

That does not mean you have a right to come into my home or busness and speak freely about anything.

We have no rights at all. Nevertheless, I might well enter your home or business and say whatever I want to assuming I have the power to do so. You could only stop (censor) me if you had the power to do so. So as I point out in the OP, who censors whom depends not on who has the better morals but who has the greater power. As such censorship if not immoral is amoral.

Limits being things like inciting a riot, verbal abuse, criminal conspiracy and so on.

Do you verbally abuse people? If so, should you have been censored?

A private platform like this one has every right to limit speech. Go to a Christian site and agessvely argue theology and you might get banned. That is their priviledge.

As far as media is concerned, whoever controls the media controls speech. Yes, those controllers can censor people on their media, but what people can do is not necessarily moral, of course.

Moral codes imply consequences for actions and speech. If you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire and someone is trampled to death as people flee are you morally, civilly, and legally responsible for your actions?

The answer to your question depends on whether I have more power to impose my speech than others have to silence me. If I have that greater power, then I say whatever I want to say regardless of the consequences. We have numerous examples of this including the instance of Stalin. Dictatorships like his engage in often brutal censorship of all those who oppose the dictator who answers to no one for what he says.

The short answer is yes. You bet you are. You will be sued by the family and arested by police.

Only if they are able to.

Culturally, socially, and legally there is very little in the way of limits of speech and behaviour.

There most certainly are such limits!

Here in Seattle we have a long sanding issue with hate speech against Asians leading to assualts. Is such hate speech moral?

If such speech is fact-based, then no, it's not immoral in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned people can hate whomever they wish. Maybe they have good reasons to hate.

Should there be limits on public ethnic hate speech?

I'd say no because setting such limits can be worse than the hate speech.

I live on the edge of Chinatown and walk through. My neighbors in my buildng are Chinese. Should I be able to walk through my building and Chinatown mouthing Chinese hate speech?

In my opinion, yes.

That is a yes no quetion.

Anyway, you seem to approve of censorship as long as it is somebody else who is censored. Would you approve of your own speech being censored?

 

[steve_bank]

In the context of the OP morality is free thought and the opportunity to express those free thoughts either verbally or visually.

Again you have that right with a few civil and legal restrictions.

The question is where you get to say and express it.

Some forms have terms of use that you agree to for membership. If yiu send an OP to a newspaper they do not have to print it.

The 1st Amendment allows freesdom of speech, but it does not indemnify aginast consequnces of free speech.

I'd say no because setting such limits can be worse than the hate speech.

I say that is immoral.

Go to a meeting of neo Nazis and start preaching Jews and Blacks are wonderful people and neo Nazis are full of shit and defaming Hitler. You might get your head cracked.


The American resolution has always been write books and pamphlets and today start a forum to air your views. Or go on Twitter now X if you want a large audience.

If you were in my home and started mouthing racial slurs I would show you the door.

Verbally abusing somebody because of ethnicity on the street is as hurtful as kicking someone, to see that you need empathy. Morality comes from empathy.

For a diverse society on the scale of the USA to function and have civil order we need free speech, but we also need self moderation and self censorship in the interest of common good.

Also freedom of visual expression is an interpretation of the 1st Amendment and in its liberal interpretation has few limits. Certainly compared to when I grew up. Porn is a good example.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, censorship of child pornography is immoral? The censorship itself is more harmful than what it prevents?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So, censorship of child pornography is immoral? The censorship itself is more harmful than what it prevents?

It depends on what you mean by "child pornography." As we all know people often photograph their kids in the nude, and photos of nude children are often taken in some countries where kids normally go naked and those images displayed in periodicals like National Geographic. The resulting images are harmless, and only a person drunk with power would prohibit those images. If children are being abused to photograph them in the nude, then that abuse is what is immoral.

Would you approve of your own speech or your own images being censored?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In the context of the OP morality is free thought and the opportunity to express those free thoughts either verbally or visually.

Again you have that right with a few civil and legal restrictions.

The question is where you get to say and express it.

Some forms have terms of use that you agree to for membership. If yiu send an OP to a newspaper they do not have to print it.

The 1st Amendment allows freesdom of speech, but it does not indemnify aginast consequnces of free speech.

I'd say no because setting such limits can be worse than the hate speech.

I say that is immoral.

Go to a meeting of neo Nazis and start preaching Jews and Blacks are wonderful people and neo Nazis are full of shit and defaming Hitler. You might get your head cracked.


The American resolution has always been write books and pamphlets and today start a forum to air your views. Or go on Twitter now X if you want a large audience.

If you were in my home and started mouthing racial slurs I would show you the door.

Verbally abusing somebody because of ethnicity on the street is as hurtful as kicking someone, to see that you need empathy. Morality comes from empathy.

For a diverse society on the scale of the USA to function and have civil order we need free speech, but we also need self moderation and self censorship in the interest of common good.

Also freedom of visual expression is an interpretation of the 1st Amendment and in its liberal interpretation has few limits. Certainly compared to when I grew up. Porn is a good example.

Would you approve of your own speech being censored? Yes or no?

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, censorship of child pornography is immoral? The censorship itself is more harmful than what it prevents?

It depends on what you mean by "child pornography." As we all know people often photograph their kids in the nude, and photos of nude children are often taken in some countries where kids normally go naked and those images displayed in periodicals like National Geographic. The resulting images are harmless, and only a person drunk with power would prohibit those images. If children are being abused to photograph them in the nude, then that abuse is what is immoral.

Would you approve of your own speech or your own images being censored?

No that’s not what I’m talking about. And you know it so I don’t appreciate the dodge.

I’m talking about explicit graphic sexual content involving minors. Is that immoral to censor? Is the censorship of it more harmful than if?

 

[pood]

Would you approve of your own speech or your own images being censored?

It’s funny how you demand a yes/no answer from others witout being inclined to provide one yourself.

Your quote above is quite slippery. We know the abuse is immoral. Everone knows that. The question is, should child ponography be censored? Yes? No?

 

[pood]

Shadowy Man got there first.

 

[Tigers!]

In the context of the OP morality is free thought and the opportunity to express those free thoughts either verbally or visually.

Again you have that right with a few civil and legal restrictions.

The question is where you get to say and express it.

Some forms have terms of use that you agree to for membership. If yiu send an OP to a newspaper they do not have to print it.

The 1st Amendment allows freesdom of speech, but it does not indemnify aginast consequnces of free speech.

I'd say no because setting such limits can be worse than the hate speech.

I say that is immoral.

Go to a meeting of neo Nazis and start preaching Jews and Blacks are wonderful people and neo Nazis are full of shit and defaming Hitler. You might get your head cracked.


The American resolution has always been write books and pamphlets and today start a forum to air your views. Or go on Twitter now X if you want a large audience.

If you were in my home and started mouthing racial slurs I would show you the door.

Verbally abusing somebody because of ethnicity on the street is as hurtful as kicking someone, to see that you need empathy. Morality comes from empathy.

For a diverse society on the scale of the USA to function and have civil order we need free speech, but we also need self moderation and self censorship in the interest of common good.

Also freedom of visual expression is an interpretation of the 1st Amendment and in its liberal interpretation has few limits. Certainly compared to when I grew up. Porn is a good example.

Would you approve of your own speech being censored? Yes or no?

By approving the TOU on these site itself you are allowing the possibility that your speech will be censored. Even on this site there are limits to what you may say ,how you may say it and to whom.

 

[Tigers!]

Every single one of us will approve of censorship in some from or other. It's where the line is drawn that is in dispute.
We will differ on what is considered "acceptable" in polite, or not so polite, company.

 

[TomC]

Every single one of us will approve of censorship in some from or other. It's where the line is drawn that is in dispute.
We will differ on what is considered "acceptable" in polite, or not so polite, company.

Frankly, I'm able to deal with "unacceptable", under most circumstances. People saying things I consider trashy or deceitful or otherwise unacceptable. But I do have limits. They vary greatly depending on the context.

Kiddie porno is way out there on the limits. Post it on the internet and I'm fine with you being prosecuted. Post it on a forum I frequent and I'm fine with you being permanently banned.

Yeah, I'm totally fine with censorship under some circumstances.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem is with the absolutist attitude. If he can agree that there is a line then it’s all about negotiating the line.

If he sticks to his guns that all censorship is immoral then he has to be willing to admit that he is saying that censoring child porn is worse than actual Child porn.

Maybe he believes that and that’s fine. He is allowed to have his opinion. I wouldn’t censor him for having that opinion.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So, censorship of child pornography is immoral? The censorship itself is more harmful than what it prevents?

It depends on what you mean by "child pornography." As we all know people often photograph their kids in the nude, and photos of nude children are often taken in some countries where kids normally go naked and those images displayed in periodicals like National Geographic. The resulting images are harmless, and only a person drunk with power would prohibit those images. If children are being abused to photograph them in the nude, then that abuse is what is immoral.

Would you approve of your own speech or your own images being censored?

No that’s not what I’m talking about. And you know it so I don’t appreciate the dodge.

I didn't dodge anything. What I posted above is my take on "child porn."

I’m talking about explicit graphic sexual content involving minors. Is that immoral to censor? Is the censorship of it more harmful than if?

Answer my question, and I will answer yours. Would you approve of your own speech or your own images being censored? Yes or no.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

By approving the TOU on these site itself you are allowing the possibility that your speech will be censored. Even on this site there are limits to what you may say ,how you may say it and to whom.

The snare has been set already! LOL

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The problem is with the absolutist attitude. If he can agree that there is a line then it’s all about negotiating the line.

If he sticks to his guns that all censorship is immoral then he has to be willing to admit that he is saying that censoring child porn is worse than actual Child porn.

Maybe he believes that and that’s fine. He is allowed to have his opinion. I wouldn’t censor him for having that opinion.

It would be very helpful to define "child porn." "Pornography" is notoriously difficult to define.

And just for the record, I've been sexually abused, and to equate images of naked children with sexual abuse is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I already defined it in post 8. So please answer my question. You are answering a different question. Further dodging will be interpreted as an unwillingness to engage in good faith discussion.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If all censorship is immoral then the definition is immaterial. The fact that you are asking for a definition implies that there may be a line you can agree to.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I already defined it in post 8. So please answer my question. You are answering a different question.

What is "explicit graphic sexual content"?

Further dodging will be interpreted as an unwillingness to engage in good faith discussion.

I can't dodge what you don't post. A more charitable approach on your part is to assume you did not make yourself clear. I should emphasize that I did not intend this discussion to devolve into an argument about child pornography but about censorship in general.