When Should Speech be Censored?

[Callisto]

"When Should Speech be Censored?"

When it's idiot ravings continually cranked out by a certain set of stubby sausage fingers at 3am on Twitter.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The limits of what we can freely say is determined by social consensus, and is expressed in law.
Like all laws these bounds are in fact set by testing in court.
It is also influenced by social change and even has a fashionable element. In that it responds to political trends.

 

[Thief]

political trends.....to describe what kind of social discord....?

I remember photos of Kent State
as compared to riots in the more recent south

 

[Stevicus]

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?

Observation is fine, but it might also depend on what conclusions one is drawing. I can see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I think this illustrates the point I was making earlier in that people continue to foster and embrace race-based perceptions which lead to greater problems. Why even have a day where all the white students have to leave campus? Who makes up this kind of stuff anyway? A lot of people claim to want to bring the races together and have everyone get along, yet they come up with these ridiculous contrivances...for what purpose?

 

[Politesse]

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....

Believe it or not, death threats and mobs are illegal, while free speech is not. Again, this seems to be promoting a VERY fuzzy definition of censorship. Having your own speech protected by the government while your opponents are jailed is not you being censored. In fact, not only was Weinstein protected, the person he sent that e-mail to invited him to a public meeting to discuss his concerns, a meeting he refused. He only talks to rightwing sources, and makes dramatic claims instead of pursuing the many public avenues by which he could in fact not just complain but actually force the college to respond formally. That's not censorship. That's an invitation to a democratic solution.

Meanwhile, the exaggerated coverage by Fox et al has resulted in mobbing, actual violent assaults, and death threats to the students. Weinstein himself is horrified by the ultimate result of his actions, and has begged his Twitter followers to stop the doxxing (that he instigated). And even though the college would be well within its rights to fire a professor for instigating violence against a student, they have not, and in fact:

Asked whether the administration has considered seeking Weinstein's resignation, Powers says, "Bret Weinstein has the right to speak to whomever he wishes. He has freedom of speech and will not be sanctioned for his actions."

That is not censorship.

 

[Politesse]

Why even have a day where all the white students have to leave campus?

The white faculty were invited to attend a workshop that had previously been closed to them. Not students. Not "had to" do anything. Not kept out of anything, the opposite is true; they were being invited to attend something they formerly had not been invited to. Not only were all faculty not required to attend, they weren't in any sense expected to; most of the events required RSVPs due to an anticipated lack of space. Weinstein is in trouble for his comments, not his participation, and he is not formally in any trouble, only in public opinion.

Sources:
https://evergreen.edu/multicultural/day-of-absence-day-of-presence
Day of Absence Changes Form

 

[Sunstone]

Believe it or not, death threats and mobs are illegal, while free speech is not. Again, this seems to be promoting a VERY fuzzy definition of censorship. Having your own speech protected by the government while your opponents are jailed is not you being censored. In fact, not only was Weinstein protected, the person he sent that e-mail to invited him to a public meeting to discuss his concerns, a meeting he refused. He only talks to rightwing sources, and makes dramatic claims instead of pursuing the many public avenues by which he could in fact not just complain but actually force the college to respond formally. That's not censorship. That's an invitation to a democratic solution.

Meanwhile, the exaggerated coverage by Fox et al has resulted in mobbing, actual violent assaults, and death threats to the students. Weinstein himself is horrified by the ultimate result of his actions, and has begged his Twitter followers to stop the doxxing (that he instigated). And even though the college would be well within its rights to fire a professor for instigating violence against a student, they have not, and in fact:



That is not censorship.

You've been missing the point. The point is that the grounds upon which regressive leftists justify suppressing speech are most likely to eventually lead to tyranny. That was the point of Cohen's article. Your criticisms amount to saying, "Well it hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen". That's a bogus argument.

 

[Sunstone]

The white faculty were invited to attend a workshop that had previously been closed to them. Not students. Not "had to" do anything. Not kept out of anything, the opposite is true; they were being invited to attend something they formerly had not been invited to. Not only were all faculty not required to attend, they weren't in any sense expected to; most of the events required RSVPs due to an anticipated lack of space. Weinstein is in trouble for his comments, not his participation, and he is not formally in any trouble, only in public opinion.

Sources:
https://evergreen.edu/multicultural/day-of-absence-day-of-presence
Day of Absence Changes Form

Have you actually read Weinstein's email declining to leave campus for the day? Please show precisely where his words in that email are inflammatory and deserve anything nearly like the animosity, slander, and libel that has been directed at him.

 

[Thief]

Observation is fine, but it might also depend on what conclusions one is drawing. I can see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing.

maybe we are not on the same page
but at least you see what my speech is about

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

When the speech would lead to the undermining of public order and morality.

 

[Politesse]

You've been missing the point. The point is that the grounds upon which regressive leftists justify suppressing speech are most likely to eventually lead to tyranny. That was the point of Cohen's article. Your criticisms amount to saying, "Well it hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen". That's a bogus argument.

What suppression? No one is arguing for censorship, either.

 

[Politesse]

The problem isn't the email (idiotic though that was), it's the media frenzy he kicked up around it.

 

[VioletVortex]

Never. The only people who are harmed by anyone's speech are deserving of it.

 

[icehorse]

When the speech would lead to the undermining of public order and morality.

Who would decide that? I've never heard of a person qualified to make such pronouncements.

 

[UpperLimits]

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.

Exactly. If your views can't stand up to examination, then maybe you need some new views.

Although I will point out also that stupid acts, such as "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" do tend to have their own consequences. Such people tend to find themselves socially isolated as few people want to hang out with an idiot.

 

[UpperLimits]

What suppression? No one is arguing for censorship, either.

Not openly with words.... But I suspect an armed mob outside your doorstep might have a similar effect.

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

Who would decide that? I've never heard of a person qualified to make such pronouncements.

The new Minister of Social Harmony appointed to look after it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe looking at censored terms in this forum itself can shed some light on the bigger picture as to some possible reasons as to why censorship of speech is a good or bad thing depending upon ones view and position.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Only when speech is showing intent to to commit violence or antagonize others to encourage violence. So basically left leaning liberals, SJWs and 70% of university students should have their freedom of speech removed ASAP and the biggest offenders like Obama, Hillary, Bernie and Paul Ryan need to be imprisoned.

Kidding aside though speech should only be limited when it is encouraging violence. That is about all I can agree upon.