When Should Speech be Censored?

[Politesse]

That article is ludicrous by the way. He is actually claiming that John Stuart Mill is not taught on modern university campuses? What campuses are those? And lots of scare quotes, but no evidence that censorship has, in fact, taken place. Like most people on the right these days, he seems to be confusing public opposition for censorship. Believe it or not, if you have free speech, so should your neighbor if they disagree with you.

 

[leibowde84]

it's the 'conditions' part that I will not defend

you can say anything you want.....that is freedom

if I get my feelings hurt......my problem

you're only free if my problems are my problems

if I burden you with my speech?.......what shall we do?

There are absolutely necessary restraints on speech, though. And, they aren't due to "hurting feelings". Things like libel and slander exist for a very good reason. Personal privacy also restricts certain speech.

Would you be OK with me spreading stories in the media about you raping children or murdering people without any evidence?

 

[Sunstone]

That article is ludicrous by the way. He is actually claiming that John Stuart Mill is not taught on modern university campuses? What campuses are those? And lots of scare quotes, but no evidence that censorship has, in fact, taken place. Like most people on the right these days, he seems to be confusing public opposition for censorship. Believe it or not, if you have free speech, so should your neighbor if they disagree with you.

With due respect, I don't think you gave the article a close reading if those were the misconceptions you got out of it.

 

[icehorse]

When should speech be censored? Why?

Great read: Political Correctness is Devouring Itself by Nick Cohen.

My summary of the article is that the author is in favor of allowing almost all speech. Whether I understood the article well or not, make take is that we SHOULD allow almost all speech.

The risks of censorship far outweigh the risks of hurt feelings.

 

[Father Heathen]

When should speech be censored? Why?

When it becomes threats and harassment, or "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater", all of which go well beyond merely expressing an idea/belief/opinion or dispensing information.

Instead of shielding and sheltering people from ignorant ideas, beliefs, opinions, etc. they should be countered with open debate and education. That way people will understand precisely why they're erroneous.

 

[Thief]

So your doctor should be free to talk publically about your medical treatment, your accountant about your finances, your lawyer about you legal cases? People should be free to stand outside your window at 3am and blare loud music, put child-porn on billboards, advertise their products as being “Made in America” or “GM free” even if that’s a lie? Slander and libel should be fair game with no come-back, even if they destroy someone’s business, career or private-life? Can I falsely accuse you of raping me and get away with it even if I’m found out?

You might draw your lines at a different place to me but you’ll still draw lines somewhere.

how about I ignore you?

I think you are confusing free speech with assault or betrayal

line drawn?

we'll see as this thread goes on

 

[Stevicus]

When should speech be censored? Why?




Great read: Political Correctness is Devouring Itself by Nick Cohen.

Only when it creates a clear and present danger.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I think the restrictions in the US are perfectly adequate.

Which is, I feel, at least part of the reason why the USA still has such a problem with societal racism. If you give racist sentiments access to the realm of public discourse you normalise them and make them seem acceptable.

 

[Politesse]

With due respect, I don't think you gave the article a close reading if those were the misconceptions you got out of it.

He writes:

Go into the modern university and you won’t hear much about Mill or Milton or the millions around the world who have had to learn the hard way why freedom of speech matters. Instead, you will be fed philosophers far less rigorous than Feinberg.

This is simply ridiculous, and bears no relation to any philosophy or literature curriculum I have ever heard of. He only supports his point with two scare quotes from philsophers talking about their personal opinions - not the official policy of their schools - concerning inflammatory speech.

And if you think a "close reading" would reveal any evidence for any other form of censorship, feel free to point it out. This is a hack job on modern academia, and it is groundless. I don't work in Britain, but plenty of my colleagues do, and none of them have ever faced a gag order. Controversy, yes. Protests, yes. Even institutional pressure to "voluntarily" shut the hell up or face hot water, with some dubious politics following. I approve of the first two, and strongly disapprove of the third. But none of them ever actually stopped talking, and none of them ever faced any formal punishment for doing so, nor was any attempt made to destroy the materials or sound files they created in pursuit of their research. That isn't censorship. If you think it is, you've never worked under a government that practices academic censorship routinely. If an academic at UoT in Iran publishes something their government disapproves of, they don't get a talking-to from their dean; their work simply disappears, and they are warned or terminated depending on the severity of their crime.

 

[Thief]

Which is, I feel, at least part of the reason why the USA still has such a problem with societal racism. If you give racist sentiments access to the realm of public discourse you normalise them and make them seem acceptable.

do you? .....youtube

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

do you? .....youtube

Yes I......... youtube
Societal racism........... has been a problem in America.......................... long before................... social media .............................................. existed

 

[Thief]

coincidentally.....last nights news documentary included a story of a cartoonist
who posted an item that went viral on the web

but not for his own handiwork

someone ripped off his cartoon .....changing a variety of details
then they started posting his photo....photo shopping his face into a neo-Nazis outfit
and adding words of lesser meaning all around

then he started getting hate mail on his email

I don't know how it turned out for him
I had to go to work and did not hear the rest of the story

but of course.....defaming someone else to your own use....
is disgusting

 

[Stevicus]

Which is, I feel, at least part of the reason why the USA still has such a problem with societal racism. If you give racist sentiments access to the realm of public discourse you normalise them and make them seem acceptable.

You could be right, although I think the main reason why the US has such a problem with societal racism is that the issue was never really dealt with honestly to begin with. The same race-based perceptions still exist; people still see things in terms of race. As long as people continue to be categorized and grouped into a racial/ethnic/religious identity (even if it's done for supposedly positive reasons with good intentions), then it leaves an opening to make any group into "the other," which is only one step away from normalizing hate speech and racist sentiments.

 

[Thief]

You could be right, although I think the main reason why the US has such a problem with societal racism is that the issue was never really dealt with honestly to begin with. The same race-based perceptions still exist; people still see things in terms of race. As long as people continue to be categorized and grouped into a racial/ethnic/religious identity (even if it's done for supposedly positive reasons with good intentions), then it leaves an opening to make any group into "the other," which is only one step away from normalizing hate speech and racist sentiments.

are we branching to discussion ?.....birds of a feather flock together

In my life
I grew up in the housing projects of a mid size city
the city grew tired of what went on there
everyone got evicted
and the city tore it all down

an identical project used to be in the smaller city I moved to
the city tore it down

the east side of the town of which I now own residence ....has declined

the crime rate has risen to that of a major city north of me
a dubious distinction
the the population changed
in one particular way

they now shoot each other in random drive by

to my knowledge......none of the decline was brought to bear by long standing citizens

we were invaded

so.....observation compared to free speech?

 

[leibowde84]

Which is, I feel, at least part of the reason why the USA still has such a problem with societal racism. If you give racist sentiments access to the realm of public discourse you normalise them and make them seem acceptable.

But, racist sentiments are not acceptable in the US. They are ridiculed almost immediately where I live. Maybe more in the south, but they get ridiculed by everyone else.

 

[Politesse]

But, racist sentiments are not acceptable in the US. They are ridiculed almost immediately where I live. Maybe more in the south, but they get ridiculed by everyone else.

Depends how you say it. You can't say "Black people are terrible! I hate them!" or "I wish every Mexican was deported because I don't like sharing the country with people who are different!" But you can say "Welfare queens are draining this country dry" or "Illegals are taking all 'our' jobs", and even though everyone knows perfectly well that you're referring to a skin color obliquely and spreading bullhooey about people who have one that isn't yours, you'll get applause from your conservative friends or "refusing to be politically correct". Or if you are a liberal, you can say "I just want to make sure my children are living in a good neighborhood" and mean the same thing, and just get blank nods.

 

[leibowde84]

Depends how you say it. You can't say "Black people are terrible! I hate them!" or "I wish every Mexican was deported because I don't like sharing the country with people who are different!" But you can say "Welfare queens are draining this country dry" or "Illegals are taking all 'our' jobs", and even though everyone knows perfectly well that you're referring to a skin color obliquely and spreading bullhooey about people who have one that isn't yours, you'll get applause for "refusing to be politically correct". Or if you are a liberal, you can say "I just want to make sure my children are living in a good neighborhood" and mean the same thing, and just get blank nods.

Only by hillbillies. Everyone else will ridicule you. If you say something like that in DC where I live, you will be shot down immediately. Pounced on even ... and for good reason.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When should speech be censored? Why?
Never. Because you cannot legislate ideas and opinions.



Great read: Political Correctness is Devouring Itself by Nick Cohen.

 

[Sunstone]

He writes:

This is simply ridiculous, and bears no relation to any philosophy or literature curriculum I have ever heard of. He only supports his point with two scare quotes from philsophers talking about their personal opinions - not the official policy of their schools - concerning inflammatory speech.

And if you think a "close reading" would reveal any evidence for any other form of censorship, feel free to point it out. This is a hack job on modern academia, and it is groundless. I don't work in Britain, but plenty of my colleagues do, and none of them have ever faced a gag order. Controversy, yes. Protests, yes. Even institutional pressure to "voluntarily" shut the hell up or face hot water, with some dubious politics following. I approve of the first two, and strongly disapprove of the third. But none of them ever actually stopped talking, and none of them ever faced any formal punishment for doing so, nor was any attempt made to destroy the materials or sound files they created in pursuit of their research. That isn't censorship. If you think it is, you've never worked under a government that practices academic censorship routinely. If an academic at UoT in Iran publishes something their government disapproves of, they don't get a talking-to from their dean; their work simply disappears, and they are warned or terminated depending on the severity of their crime.

How do you reconcile your pretty little picture with Evergreen State? A professor in hiding with his family after death threats, gangs with bats and sticks roaming campus....

 

[Mister Emu]

How do you reconcile your pretty little picture with Evergreen State? A professor in hiding with his family after death threats, gangs with bats and sticks roaming campus....

But, Sunstone, that was for being white on campus when it wasn't wanted and then defending himself for wrongly imposing his whiteness on POC. Completely different.