Peak mollycoddling

[Sunstone]

So when is censorship justified?

I go with Mills on that one. Censorship is only justified when it is necessary to avoid harm to someone or the imminent threat of harm to someone. Such as when political speech inciting people to riot is censored.

 

[dust1n]

I go with Mills on that one. Censorship is only justified when it is necessary to avoid harm to someone or the imminent threat of harm to someone. Such as when political speech inciting people to riot is censored.

So how is the child molester in question justly censored despite the fact it is not necessary to avoid harm to someone or the imminent threat of harm?

 

[Sunstone]

So how is the child molester in question justly censored despite the fact it is not necessary to avoid harm to someone or the imminent threat of harm?

If it is not necessary to avoid harm or the imminent threat of harm, then the child molester should not be censored by the government. Nor, I might add, by public institutions, such as State funded Universities. But suppose the child molester were giving a speech inciting people to molest children? What would you do then?

 

[dust1n]

If it is not necessary to avoid harm or the imminent threat of harm, then the child molester should not be censored by the government. Nor, I might add, by public institutions, such as State funded Universities. But suppose the child molester were giving a speech inciting people to molest children? What would you do then?

So, as a student of a publicly funded school, when I graduate next year, were my school to have Assad, Abbas, Cosby, Putin, or Jared from Subway. What if Jared was going scheduled to do my commencement speech, only to find out two weeks later the whole kerfuffle. Any objection on my part, and I would be, in fact, in contradiction to liberal values, and, even worse, pampered?

 

[Sunstone]

So, as a student of a publicly funded school, when I graduate next year, were my school to have Assad, Abbas, Cosby, Putin, or Jared from Subway. What if Jared was going scheduled to do my commencement speech, only to find out two weeks later the whole kerfuffle. Any objection on my part, and I would be, in fact, in contradiction to liberal values, and, even worse, pampered?

I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase it, please?

 

[dust1n]

I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase it, please?

Sure.

If a given situation where Jared from Subway was set to give my commencement speech, and two weeks later it was revealed he had be aiding child molesters, his speech would not be an immediate danger or threat of danger to anyone at a given graduation. Am I to understand you correctly that there is no justified manner by which to object to this?

 

[Sunstone]

Sure.

If a given situation where Jared from Subway was set to give my commencement speech, and two weeks later it was revealed he had be aiding child molesters, his speech would not be an immediate danger or threat of danger to anyone at a given graduation. Am I to understand you correctly that there is no justified manner by which to object to this?

Well, if Jared even before he is found out to be a child molester urges others to molest children, then I would say he could be rightfully censored under the harm or imminent threat of harm principle.

 

[dust1n]

Well, if Jared even before he is found out to be a child molester urges others to molest children, then I would say he could be rightfully censored under the harm or imminent threat of harm principle.

But he isn't. His planned speech is on how if we do real good in life and try real hard, we can all make a ton of money and getting the degree was totally worth it. Per the Mills conception here, I can't justifiably contend this, be it vote against his giving of the speech or speak out against it in any manner, unless he was explicitly telling me to go molest children. I'm just trying to making sure I get the gist here.

 

[Revoltingest]

But he isn't. His planned speech is on how if we do real good in life and try real hard, we can all make a ton of money and getting the degree was totally worth it. Per the Mills conception here, I can't justifiably contend this, be it vote against his giving of the speech or speak out against it in any manner, unless he was explicitly telling me to go molest children. I'm just trying to making sure I get the gist here.

Who will hench me when you're gone?
Would @BSM1 become Doctor Dugong?
Would @Wirey become The Monarch?
Would @4consideration become Doctor Girlfriend
Would @sunrise123 become Phantom Limb?
Would @Wu Wei become Sgt Hatred?

Rhetorical question here.....don't waste an increasingly valuable response on it.

 

[dust1n]

Who will hench me when you're gone?
Would @BSM1 become Doctor Dugong?
Would @Wirey become The Monarch?
Would @4consideration become Doctor Girlfriend
Would @sunrise123 become Phantom Limb?
Would @Wu Wei become Sgt Hatred?

Rhetorical question here.....don't waste an increasingly valuable response on it.

You'll still have things to do:

 

[Revoltingest]

You'll still have things to do:

Hey, the video had an ad for the return of new episodes of Samurai Jack!

 

[columbus]

If it is not necessary to avoid harm or the imminent threat of harm, then the child molester should not be censored by the government. Nor, I might add, by public institutions, such as State funded Universities. But suppose the child molester were giving a speech inciting people to molest children? What would you do then?

The child molestation thing is a bit of a strawman. Lots of institutions don't want to be associated with such horrible behavior. That is not the same as censorship.
If Richard Dawkins were credibly accused of pedophilia lots of his speaking engagements would be ended. Regardless of his topic he would become persona non grata. That's different from pulling the plug because he said something inflammatory about foreign policy or something. That would be censorship, not the former scenario.
Tom

 

[dust1n]

The child molestation thing is a bit of a strawman. Lots of institutions don't want to be associated with such horrible behavior. That is not the same as censorship.
If Richard Dawkins were credibly accused of pedophilia lots of his speaking engagements would be ended. Regardless of his topic he would become persona non grata. That's different from pulling the plug because he said something inflammatory about foreign policy or something. That would be censorship, not the former scenario.
Tom

A strawman? I'm trying to understand his means of determining what censorship is justifiable. Lots of institutions don't want to be associated with war. Lots of people don't want to be associated with aiding and abetting pointless wars. Why is the desire to not be associated with a pedophile and removing away their ability to speak less of a removal of speech than the desire to not be associated with a war and removing away their ability to speak? I mean, besides the "ick" factor.

 

[Revoltingest]

A strawman? I'm trying to understand his means of determining what censorship is justifiable. Lots of institutions don't want to be associated with war. Lots of people don't want to be associated with aiding and abetting pointless wars. Why is the desire to not be associated with a pedophile and removing away their ability to speak less of a removal of speech than the desire to not be associated with a war and removing away their ability to speak? I mean, besides the "ick" factor.

Woo hoo!
20,003rd post!
We get to keep you a little longer!