Is censorship moral?

[pood]

Also, for purposes of this discussion,it seems people ought to agree on a definition of “moral” and ”immoral.”

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It seems the gist of the argument is that censorship is immoral because the person being censored doesn't like it. If that's not the argument...

As we all know I never argued that censorship is immoral because the censored person doesn't like it.

...being made then there's no point in asking a question like:

If anything you've said or any image you've published was censored, then would that censoring be moral or immoral?

Then there is a point in asking that question. I'm testing your support of censorship to see if it is consistent and therefore just. If you feel that censorship is acceptable for others, then to be just it must be acceptable for you too.

I'm sure murderers don't think murder should be illegal. We've got politicians who lose elections who then believe that elections shouldn't count. So, I guess we are in a world where there's increasing precedent for this kind of thinking.

Yes, the way people think is changing.

Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.

 

[pood]

Here’s an example of free speech: some companies hawk a product on the airwaves that they have known for decades to cause lung and throat cancer, emphysema, birth defects, tooth decay, eye disorders, and many other debilitating conditions that have led to the deaths of vast numbers of people. Moreover, the companies knew about these problems from their own internal scientific studies long before public health officials became aware of them. Is it “immoral” to censor these companies by preventing them from airing their ads on radio and TV?

 

[steve_bank]

adjective
adjective: moral

1.
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
"the moral dimensions of medical intervention"
2.
holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
"he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person"

adjective
adjective: immoral

not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
"an immoral and unwinnable war"

As we are in a philosophy thread.

Unless you claim an absolute morality like Christians do, morality is to me a social concensus.

To an ancient Samurai refusing to commit suicide when ordered to do so was immoral.

Soldier frames it as a moral question.

Is it moral to intentionally or unemotionally to inflict emotional pain on someone?

If your careless behavior results in physical harm you are morally and legaly responsible. How is the careless use of speech any different?

 

[Shadowy Man]

It seems the gist of the argument is that censorship is immoral because the person being censored doesn't like it. If that's not the argument...

As we all know I never argued that censorship is immoral because the censored person doesn't like it.

...being made then there's no point in asking a question like:

If anything you've said or any image you've published was censored, then would that censoring be moral or immoral?

Then there is a point in asking that question. I'm testing your support of censorship to see if it is consistent and therefore just. If you feel that censorship is acceptable for others, then to be just it must be acceptable for you too.

I have not stated that I should be personally held to a separate standard of censorship than anyone else.

I'm sure murderers don't think murder should be illegal. We've got politicians who lose elections who then believe that elections shouldn't count. So, I guess we are in a world where there's increasing precedent for this kind of thinking.

Yes, the way people think is changing.

Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.

i understand your position. I just disagree.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Here’s an example of free speech: some companies hawk a product on the airwaves that they have known for decades to cause lung and throat cancer, emphysema, birth defects, tooth decay, eye disorders, and many other debilitating conditions that have led to the deaths of vast numbers of people. Moreover, the companies knew about these problems from their own internal scientific studies long before public health officials became aware of them. Is it “immoral” to censor these companies by preventing them from airing their ads on radio and TV?

I would assume so. The stance seems to be *all* censorship is immoral. The act of censoring material would be more harmful than the impact of the material itself.

If that’s not the position being put forward then I may be corrected.

 

[pood]

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. It may seriously be doubted whether the framers intended that clause to cover the “right” to make, disseminate and consume child pornography, or the “right” of companies to hawk products that they know to be lethal; but over and above that, the amendment only specifies that Congress shall not do these things. Nothing in the amendment precludes private concerns from regulating speech.

Does Unknown Soldier think this message board is behaving “immorally”? It most certainly regulates speech, and, more, in signing up here, Unknown Soldier like everyone else agreed to the terms of use. Unknown Soldier, by your own arguments, is it not immoral of you to abet the immorality of this board your very participation, given that by your own argument, this board immorally delimits your free speech?

It should be noted that advocates of unlimited free speech are these days often ridiculed as advocates of “freeze peach.” So for now I’ll have to jot Unknown Soldier down as a freeze peach advocate, not a free speech one.

 

[pood]

Another question for Unknown Soldier: If someone yells “fire” in a crowded theater, and people die during the stampede to get out, is it immoral to prosecute that person for needlessly causing the deaths of others because doing so immorally violates his free speech? Or perhaps would your argument be that it is immoral to prevent him from yelling “fire” in the first place, but moral to prosecute him if his use of free speech causes the death of others? Or what?

 

[TomC]

We have no rights at all.

Who is "we"?

I have lots of rights, concerning speech. But not unfettered rights. Certainly not the right to demand someone else publish my opinions.

I can publicly say anything I want concerning government policies. That doesn't mean the local paper is required to publish my "letter to the editor". It's not censorship if they don't.
(Yeah, I know, I'm dating myself. I used to live in a world of dead tree media.)

Similarly, if someone posted sex themed stuff on IIDB, I'd Damn Well expect the staff to censor them. Not just the post, but the poster. Delete their posts and ban them from posting.
Other media outlets, or venues, or whatever, I'd have different standards.

What I expect at a gay men's club is very different from what's acceptable at children's story hour at the library. The list of different circumstances and contexts is endless.

Not having unfettered rights isn't the same as having no rights. Expecting some people to enforce rules you prefer not to follow doesn't make them privileged.
Tom

 

[pood]

Here’s another question for unknown soldier — a backlog is forming.

Someone invites you as a guest into their home. You immediately begin trashing him, his friends, the furniture, the decor. He politely asks you STFU or leave. Has he behaved “immorally” toward you?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I have not stated that I should be personally held to a separate standard of censorship than anyone else.

You dodged my question regarding the morality of censorship being inflicted on you. I took that as your implying that no, you can never approve of your being censored. Censorship is only for the other guy.

Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.

i understand your position. I just disagree.

What do you disagree with? That there are bullies with an agenda who cannot tolerate dissent?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Here’s another question for unknown soldier — a backlog is forming.

Someone invites you as a guest into their home. You immediately begin trashing him, his friends, the furniture, the decor. He politely asks you STFU or leave. Has he behaved “immorally” toward you?

That doesn't have anything to do with censorship. But allow me to say (pun intended) that I've had people in my home who have said things I strongly disagree with and who have criticized me. I didn't kick them out because they have their own opinions, and I'm not a neanderthal who can't disprove what they say.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I have not stated that I should be personally held to a separate standard of censorship than anyone else.

You dodged my question regarding the morality of censorship being inflicted on you. I took that as your implying that no, you can never approve of your being censored. Censorship is only for the other guy.

Well, that was an incorrect assumption. It’d be the exact opposite of my position. If morality is only on the individual level then it’s not really morality.

Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.

i understand your position. I just disagree.

What do you disagree with? That there are bullies with an agenda who cannot tolerate dissent?

I disagree that *all* censorship is immoral.

 

[lostone]

Censorship creates an underground that will not go away. Better openly above ground and widely vilified.

 

[pood]

I have not stated that I should be personally held to a separate standard of censorship than anyone else.

You dodged my question regarding the morality of censorship being inflicted on you. I took that as your implying that no, you can never approve of your being censored. Censorship is only for the other guy.

How did you derive that from what he wrote? What he wrote, is exactly the opposite of what you impute to him. Sounds to me like you are replying to what you want to hear, rather than what was actually said.

Speaking for myself, I’m perfectly good with being censored or reprimanded here, if I post something that violates the terms of use, and I respect sensible limitations on free speech imposed by the government. Those no more violate the First Amendment in its intended spirt, than sensible gun-control regulations violate the Second Amendment in its spirt.

Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.

i understand your position. I just disagree.

What do you disagree with? That there are bullies with an agenda who cannot tolerate dissent?

I’ll presume to speak for him in saying of course that’s not what he disagrees with. Can you possiblly be serious? Read what he wroite.

 

[pood]

Here’s another question for unknown soldier — a backlog is forming.

Someone invites you as a guest into their home. You immediately begin trashing him, his friends, the furniture, the decor. He politely asks you STFU or leave. Has he behaved “immorally” toward you?

That doesn't have anything to do with censorship.

Why not? You would be censoring someone’s freeze peach.

I await your replies to my other examples.

 

[pood]

I’ll presume to speak for him in saying of course that’s not what he disagrees with. Can you possiblly be serious? Read what he wroite.

I see he has already spoken for himself.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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

You're not paying attention. I answered two such questions in my post #3:

No, actually, per your normal slippery posting style, you did not asnwer the specific question, “should child pornography be censord?”

You didn't ask that specific question here. You asked what I formatted in bold. You've moved the goalposts.

Anyway, although I already answered your newly posted question, my answer is NO--child pornography should not be censored.

Later, howeer, you seemed to agree that it should not be — your apparent claim is that it is more ”immoral” to censor child ponography, than it is to create it in the first place — an astoundingly sociopathic stance, imo.

You should post a direct quotation. I will defend what I've said but not what you say I've said.

No wonder I'm being targeted--I keep smashing everybody's arguments to smithereens!

A persecution complex combined with a wildly overinflated estimation of one’s own abilities is always attractive in a. message-board discusant, and sure to win friends and influence people.

Sheesh--if I tease another member saying he's like a kid with a toy train, then I get nailed. But when I'm called a "sociopath" it goes on without correction. Whatever happened to all that "free thought" I read about on some "infidels" website?

 

[pood]

Censorship creates an underground that will not go away. Better openly above ground and widely vilified.

This is generally true, but I believe there are exceptions that I’ve outlined.

 

[pood]

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

You're not paying attention. I answered two such questions in my post #3:

No, actually, per your normal slippery posting style, you did not asnwer the specific question, “should child pornography be censord?”

You didn't ask that specific question here. You asked what I formatted in bold. You've moved the goalposts.

Bullshit. You omitted to quote my very next line.

Anyway, although I already answered your newly posted question, my answer is NO--child pornography should not be censored.

Right, as I noted earlier, I already got that from later posts after I posted my question above.

Later, howeer, you seemed to agree that it should not be — your apparent claim is that it is more ”immoral” to censor child ponography, than it is to create it in the first place — an astoundingly sociopathic stance, imo.

You should post a direct quotation. I will defend what I've said but not what you say I've said.

You said earlier that it’s both immoral to make child porn, and that it’s immoral to censor child porn. But since the censorhip of child porn must happen after the fact of the making of it, it seems clear you think it’s even more immoral to censor it than to make it, since the failure to censor it magnifies the immorality of the making it, by virtue of the fact of disseminating it and thereby further victimizing the victims.

No wonder I'm being targeted--I keep smashing everybody's arguments to smithereens!

A persecution complex combined with a wildly overinflated estimation of one’s own abilities is always attractive in a. message-board discusant, and sure to win friends and influence people.

Sheesh--if I tease another member saying he's like a kid with a toy train, then I get nailed. But when I'm called a "sociopath" it goes on without correction.

I did not call you a sociopath. I said the stance was sociopathic, imo. It’s possible to take a sociopathic stance without being a sociopath. One might come to a hideous conclusion by virtue of poor reasoning, for instance; and you’ve shown plenty of poor reasoning on these boards, and so I extend you the benefit of the doubt.