Is censorship moral?

[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.

Bullshit.

I think I've had enough of this. Welcome to Ignoreland.

 

[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.

I think I've had enough of this. Welcome to Ignoreland.

Oh, look, Pretend Ignore land. And yet it’s a fact that you omitted the crucial second line in my quote, and only responded to the first part. How very eely of you. In any case, I guess pretending to ignore me is really your way of not responding to the other examples I gave, such as whether it was immoral to censor cigarette company ads that for decades pushed a product the companies already knew was lethal back in the 1930s, from their own internal studies; and also to ignore my detailed question about yelling ”fire” in a crowded theater. I gather from this that you have no response so this is your way of ducking the issues I raised.

That said, I will cointinue to comment on what you write and perforate your logic, which is rather easy to do; your “arguments” are colander-like in their permeability to refutation.

 

[steve_bank]

It is a declartion, not an argument.

An argument would be 'Censorship s immoral because....". I don't like censorship so it is immoral is not an argument.

'Censorship ma be worse than what it censors' is a rationalization.

Perhaps Soldier can flesh out his pstion wit a cohernt set of examples with a structured argument.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Soldier is unhappy with having his wings clipped.

Soldier says he thinks censorship or what he thinks is censorship is immoral, which translates as I want to say whatever I want without restriction on the net and this forum.

It is a declartion, not an argument.

An argument would be 'Censorship s immoral because....". I don't like censorship so it is immoral is not an argument.

'Censorship ma be worse than what it censors' is a rationalization.

Perhaps Soldier can flesh out his pstion wit a cohernt set of examples with a structured argument.

You may join Pood in Ignoreland.

 

[steve_bank]

Oh no, what have I done? Not that! Oh the shame! Oh the horror!

Parting is such sweet sorrow. Goodbye Soldier.

I will suffer the ignominy of being gnored in silence.

 

[bilby]

Pro-tip:

If you ignore every single other poster on a discussion board, you'll never hear anyone refute your arguments, and will therefore always be right.

 

[pood]

I expect the irony will be lost on Soldier that putting people on Ignore is a form of … well … uh … censorship.

 

[Jarhyn]

On the subject of censorship, there is a very significant difference between content tagging in an environment that allows pre-exposure filtration, and censorship.

I'm all for pre-exposure tag filtration, and putting a threshold on opt-in/opt-out.

Compare and contrast the popular furry porn site E621 to other services.

E621 allows pretty much ANY form of content, but some tags are automatically filtered for most users. After all, most users don't want to see art involving simulated violence or with images that depict imaginary minors.

There are clearly alternatives to censorship that focus on the consent of the viewer.

Compare this to FurAffinity, which does absolutely censor what users may post, banning the sorts of images that E621 allows albeit behind tag filters.

The only images I would personally see actively censored are the sort that involved real nonconsensual participation, as consuming or allowing the consumption of actual images of rape and violence, or using real rape or violence in the creation fosters an economy dedicated to the production of such content.

Of course, some situations invite censorship too. Keeping a board topical is in the interest of all of its non-troll members and who cares bout the fucking trolls anyway? But even so, many forums have a place where trolls can be trolls, some off-topic cesspit with minimal or absent moderation, though there lives the very soul of 4chan.

Censorship therefore is not categorically immoral, but there are usually better alternatives available. Generally the question that must be asked is whether the behavior itself is either demonstrably off-topic or demonstrably criminal.

 

[steve_bank]

If you are too young to rmember the 50s-70s was a battle over free speech and expression, and not just the Black civil rights movement.

McCarthy and the congressional communist witch hunt destroyed lives. Any speech that coud be interpreted as communist sympathies could get you into trouble.

We all owe something to the Black civil rights movement, IMO it really kicked open the door on what free speech means.

The wide latitude of speech and expression today traces back to the 50s-70s.

Free Speech Movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a massive, long-lasting student protest which took place during the 1964–65 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.[1] The Movement was informally under the central leadership of Berkeley graduate student Mario Savio.[2] Other student leaders include Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossman, George Barton, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Michael Teal, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg and others.[3]

With the participation of thousands of students, the Free Speech Movement was the first mass act of civil disobedience on an American college campus in the 1960s.[4] Students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom. The Free Speech Movement was influenced by the New Left,[5] and was also related to the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement.[6] To this day, the Movement's legacy continues to shape American political dialogue both on college campuses and in broader society, influencing some political views and values of college students and the general public.[7]

Anyone who thinks they have no free speech rights today is ignorant of American history.

 

[TomC]

We all owe something to the Black civil rights movement, IMO it really kicked open the door on what free speech means.

For a really excellent work on this subject,
Google Paul Robeson. He's a hero of mine.
And his book, "Here I Stand". It should be required reading in middle school.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

On the subject of censorship, there is a very significant difference between content tagging in an environment that allows pre-exposure filtration, and censorship.

I'm all for pre-exposure tag filtration, and putting a threshold on opt-in/opt-out.

Compare and contrast the popular furry porn site E621 to other services.

E621 allows pretty much ANY form of content, but some tags are automatically filtered for most users. After all, most users don't want to see art involving simulated violence or with images that depict imaginary minors.

There are clearly alternatives to censorship that focus on the consent of the viewer.

Compare this to FurAffinity, which does absolutely censor what users may post, banning the sorts of images that E621 allows albeit behind tag filters.

If you're going to use a lot of technical terms, then it's best to define them.

The only images I would personally see actively censored are the sort that involved real nonconsensual participation, as consuming or allowing the consumption of actual images of rape and violence, or using real rape or violence in the creation fosters an economy dedicated to the production of such content.

We allow news agencies to broadcast images of killing, and I think that's good because killing is a real part of the world that we should face up to. I don't know of any evidence that these images of violence cause violence.

Of course, some situations invite censorship too. Keeping a board topical is in the interest of all of its non-troll members and who cares bout the fucking trolls anyway?

That f-bomb of yours would be censored in most other forums. Would you approve of your being censored for that?

But even so, many forums have a place where trolls can be trolls, some off-topic cesspit with minimal or absent moderation, though there lives the very soul of 4chan.

Although trolls are very obnoxious and annoying, I just ignore them rather than demand their censorship. For some strange reason they often get away with murder, so what's the point in calling for their silencing? So that's why I say censorship is immoral; it's very unevenly applied.

Censorship therefore is not categorically immoral, but there are usually better alternatives available. Generally the question that must be asked is whether the behavior itself is either demonstrably off-topic or demonstrably criminal.

I suppose self-censorship is moral although in that case no real censorship takes place.

 

[Tigers!]

If you are too young to rmember the 50s-70s was a battle over free speech and expression, and not just the Black civil rights movement.

McCarthy and the congressional communist witch hunt destroyed lives. Any speech that coud be interpreted as communist sympathies could get you into trouble.

We all owe something to the Black civil rights movement, IMO it really kicked open the door on what free speech means.

These days it saying something that is considered anti-LBGT+ will get you into trouble.

 

[TomC]

If you are too young to rmember the 50s-70s was a battle over free speech and expression, and not just the Black civil rights movement.

McCarthy and the congressional communist witch hunt destroyed lives. Any speech that coud be interpreted as communist sympathies could get you into trouble.

We all owe something to the Black civil rights movement, IMO it really kicked open the door on what free speech means.

These days it saying something that is considered anti-LBGT+ will get you into trouble.

Maybe in Australia, certainly not around here.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

On the subject of censorship, there is a very significant difference between content tagging in an environment that allows pre-exposure filtration, and censorship.

I'm all for pre-exposure tag filtration, and putting a threshold on opt-in/opt-out.

Compare and contrast the popular furry porn site E621 to other services.

E621 allows pretty much ANY form of content, but some tags are automatically filtered for most users. After all, most users don't want to see art involving simulated violence or with images that depict imaginary minors.

There are clearly alternatives to censorship that focus on the consent of the viewer.

Compare this to FurAffinity, which does absolutely censor what users may post, banning the sorts of images that E621 allows albeit behind tag filters.

If you're going to use a lot of technical terms, then it's best to define them.

Pick the word you need defined and ask about that rather than pretending any of the words I used are ambiguous here. Ask Google, first though.

The only images I would personally see actively censored are the sort that involved real nonconsensual participation, as consuming or allowing the consumption of actual images of rape and violence, or using real rape or violence in the creation fosters an economy dedicated to the production of such content.

We allow news agencies to broadcast images of killing, and I think that's good because killing is a real part of the world that we should face up to. I don't know of any evidence that these images of violence cause violence.

No, we don't generally. Or, news agencies don't. And they pretty universally notify viewers first before exposure to graphic, real violence. Generally it is deemed not contextual.

Further, it's not produced in a consumptive fashion. There's a difference between a timely informational report, and an indexed website where it's tagged like porn. Simulated material is an entirely different beast.

Of course, some situations invite censorship too. Keeping a board topical is in the interest of all of its non-troll members and who cares bout the fucking trolls anyway?

That f-bomb of yours would be censored in most other forums. Would you approve of your being censored for that?

On those forums, if I went there, yes.

But even so, many forums have a place where trolls can be trolls, some off-topic cesspit with minimal or absent moderation, though there lives the very soul of 4chan.

Although trolls are very obnoxious and annoying, I just ignore them rather than demand their censorship. For some strange reason they often get away with murder, so what's the point in calling for their silencing? So that's why I say censorship is immoral; it's very unevenly applied.

I visit places where they will be censored as off topic because I wishy personal signal/noise ratio be higher on "signal" than "noise". If you want otherwise, 4chan's /b/ is always there for you. I'm just glad here isn't there.

Censorship therefore is not categorically immoral, but there are usually better alternatives available. Generally the question that must be asked is whether the behavior itself is either demonstrably off-topic or demonstrably criminal.

I suppose self-censorship is moral although in that case no real censorship takes place.

I see no relevance as to what some red herring that isn't a Scotsman has to do with the discussion.

 

[blastula]

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.

Offensive post reported.

 

[bilby]

The only reasonable answer to the question in the thread title is "it depends".

That the OP was able, in just three words, to demonstrate that he lacks the understanding and educational maturity to even begin a debate on an important topic, without committing the fallacy of casting it as a false dichotomy, is almost impressive.

If the purpose was to discuss censorship, then the OP is an abject failure; But if its purpose was rather to serve as a warning against attempting to engage in discussion with an OP that is clearly incompetent to participate in any such discussion, then it is a shining example of success in communicating an important point in a very efficient manner.

 

[steve_bank]

Still have no clue as to who these nebulous censors are.

On the net and in the real world at some poimt sometimes you realize somebody you are trying to communicate with is not quite right in the head.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The specifics o what to censor are not black and white, which is the issue.

The rprevailing sentiment on the left is if there is conflict get rid of any restrictions.

In Settle more blacks were stopped for not wearing bike helmets. The progessive city council solution, get rid of the bike helmet law.

Easy to resolve the speech issue, no limits...right?

They probably did the right thing. If the law was only being enforced to harass then what's the point of having it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On the subject of censorship, there is a very significant difference between content tagging in an environment that allows pre-exposure filtration, and censorship.

I'm all for pre-exposure tag filtration, and putting a threshold on opt-in/opt-out.

Compare and contrast the popular furry porn site E621 to other services.

E621 allows pretty much ANY form of content, but some tags are automatically filtered for most users. After all, most users don't want to see art involving simulated violence or with images that depict imaginary minors.

There are clearly alternatives to censorship that focus on the consent of the viewer.

Compare this to FurAffinity, which does absolutely censor what users may post, banning the sorts of images that E621 allows albeit behind tag filters.

If you're going to use a lot of technical terms, then it's best to define them.

What's technical here?

"Furry porn"? It's actually totally irrelevant to his point.

"E621", "FurAffinity"? Names. This is the first I've heard of either but it's clear they are names, what more understanding is needed?

"Tagging"? You've managed to function with the internet for at least a couple of years, you haven't heard of tags?

"Filtration"? Sure seems like a common term to me.

"Pre-exposure"? I can't recall running into it before but the meaning is clear.

Everything else is simply a combination of these terms.

A similar system exists on Steam--games of an adult nature will only show if you go into the settings and turn them on. It could use a bit of improvement as it gives examples of games that meet it's various thresholds but if you don't know the game that doesn't tell you a lot. (And will not show if you're not logged in.)

Or in Google search--you will not get adult results unless you include at least one unambigiously adult term in your search even if you have safe search turned off. (And they do the same thing in Google Translate--but there you can't just throw in a filler. Good luck getting the dirty word for a penis.)

 

[bilby]

A similar system exists on Steam--games of an adult nature will only show if you go into the settings and turn them on.

Fnarr, fnarr.