Free speech vs Censorship (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

Perhaps the free speech debate is unsolvable, and will never be solved, no matter how much you tease out the pros and cons. There is an assumption that by discussion, we can arrive at a conclusion. But often it seems that instead of converging on argreement, the more you discuss the topic, the great the divergence from one another. There ought to be a name for this type of thing. Slap a label on it so we don't expend unnecessary effort!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The debate is always soluble, Jon. Not to decide is to decide. By default if you decide there is no solution you have arrived at a solution ... to do nothing.

 

[Jon]

The debate is always soluble, Jon. Not to decide is to decide. By default if you decide there is no solution you have arrived at a solution ... to do nothing.

I understand what you mean, but I see a flaw! You are saying you decide to not decide between free speech vs censorship.

But here is the flaw:

"Decide" does not equal "Not decide", they are opposites.

Therefore, you are saying you "decided" and "not decided" both at the same time, which is not possible since they are opposites.

It is like saying, "This statement is false." It cannot be true and false at the same time.

If you argue that not deciding is a decision, then that is a form of logical fallacy called a False Equivalence. (Full disclosure: I used AI to get the name of this logical fallacy, but the rest of the ramblings are my own thoughts).

 

[Pat Hartman]

Free speech, if unfettered, gives the right to publish anything - that includes explicitly violent and sexual and racist material.

Yep. But you don't need to look at it.

Do you know how to find the explicit sexual content sold openly at many book stores? I discovered it quite by accident some years ago. Did I go public and condemn the store and insist that it be closed? No. The material was discreet and children were never going to notice it. But it is there for adults if they are interested.

Do you advocate that such material should be accessible to all - your young children, for eg. ?

Absolutely not and for the same reason I am against drag queen book readings and sexually explicit material in grammar and high schools under the guise of teaching "acceptance". I am also against the nudity and sexually explicit performances at gay pride parades but only because they are public and therefore easily accessible by children. I have no objection to "gentlemen's" clubs or drag shows or other similar performance venues, nude beaches and even sex clubs where adults do whatever adults do with other consenting adults. It isn't mine to judge. The only requirement is that the public face has to be discreet because it is visible to unsuspecting passers by and not everyone thinks places like these have a right to exist. I don't want explicit pictures and descriptions on billboards where children can see them. I'm not even against prostitution except that way too much of it actually victimizes women and uses them rather than allowing them the freedom of choice. If someone over 21 wants to be eye-candy, etc. to dirty old men, there is a lot of money to be made providing that service. It should not be illegal.

Should there be censorship?

You are conflating protecting children with keeping adults from hearing all sides of an argument.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Perhaps the free speech debate is unsolvable,

It is unsolvable as long as one side believes that they are the arbiter of truth and can decide what everyone else gets to hear. There have always been people who want to suppress information they don't believe or opinions they disagree with. The flat-earth movement is alive and well and some of us are resisting.

This is a baby that cannot be split. It's time we made 1984 required reading in high school again. When I read the book, it was still more than 20 years in the future and I never believed it could happen. I was wrong. It has happened. We are living this nightmare.

My generation made it happen. Where did our parents go wrong? I lived through the 60's but I didn't know they were happening because I wasn't in college at the time. It was just news stories. Maybe that is how I got away without being brainwashed.

 

[Isaac]

There is the slippery slope. That is the rock the people who demanded you take the COVID vaccine to "protect the world" are standing on. They were sure they were right and therefore "morally" could impose their will on the other half of us and ruin our lives and health for the "sake of others". Don't go there Issac.

Well, I had bullying in mind when I included that exception ... I'm pretty passionate about bullying issues

 

[The_Doc_Man]

"Decide" does not equal "Not decide", they are opposites.

If you decide that you cannot decide on one option or the other, you do nothing - which implicitly means status quo, whatever you are doing now. If your decision leads to action, you have decided something. If your decision or lack of decision leads to inaction, you have thereby implicitly decided that what you've got will have to do for now, optimum or not.

I'm a results player sometimes. It's part of being a pragmatic person. Which in this case means that if you did nothing, that was a possible decision and the reason for doing nothing doesn't matter. This is a form of Zen logic, which dwells on WHY a decision was made only for the minimum time necessary to make that decision and then you let it go and move on.

 

[Jon]

If I go to vote and decide not to decide, then did I decide on a candidate or not decide? It is as simple as that!

 

[Pat Hartman]

Well, I had bullying in mind when I included that exception ... I'm pretty passionate about bullying issues

I'm pretty passionate about bullying also but there is no consensus regarding what bullying means. To some it would simply be misgendering, even when accidental. You need to teach your children to recognize bullying and give them a way to fight back without being violent. If all else fails, call the principal.

Perhaps, you can reread the Constitution. I don't recall seeing any "bullying" exception or even any "fire" exception. That was simply made up by an activist court and it became "law". Just like Roe v. Wade became "law" because an activist court was trying to split the baby.

 

[Isaac]

I'm pretty passionate about bullying also but there is no consensus regarding what bullying means. To some it would simply be misgendering, even when accidental. You need to teach your children to recognize bullying and give them a way to fight back without being violent. If all else fails, call the principal.

Perhaps, you can reread the Constitution. I don't recall seeing any "bullying" exception or even any "fire" exception. That was simply made up by an activist court and it became "law". Just like Roe v. Wade became "law" because an activist court was trying to split the baby.

True enough, but I do like when organizations ban bullying on their own campuses, which they have a right to restrict afaik

but you're completely right- as liberals continue re-defining every term in the dictionary, 'bullying' can be used to suppress just being normal, too

 

[Pat Hartman]

True enough, but I do like when organizations ban bullying on their own campuses, which they have a right to restrict afaik

If a company wants to define bullying or schools want to define it, great. BUT, they MUST be consistent in the application of judgement also. It is the government that cannot define it and impose speech restrictions.

The problem we have is that the internet has become the public square and the various companies that control content have decided to be the thought police - at the encouragement of the government I might add. Current laws protect them from being sued. However, their attempts at censorship violate the laws that protect them. Therefore, they give up their right to be protected from lawsuits if they censor content. BUT - the government is playing favorites and because it agrees with the censorship, will not deign to punish the internet companies for censoring groups/individuals/companies that the government thinks should be censored.

Do not buy into their way of thinking. Unless YOU are the arbiter of truth, you cannot personally decide on what content needs to be censored.

I agree that our children are in danger. They get bullied on Social Media and we can't see it. That is why parents always need access to their children's accounts. Not to police the children per se but to be sure that they are not being abused without our knowing it. OR, if we are not bullies ourselves, we should not allow our children to engage in bullying behavior.

 

[Isaac]

If a company wants to define bullying or schools want to define it, great. BUT, they MUST be consistent in the application of judgement also. It is the government that cannot define it and impose speech restrictions.

The problem we have is that the internet has become the public square and the various companies that control content have decided to be the thought police - at the encouragement of the government I might add. Current laws protect them from being sued. However, their attempts at censorship violate the laws that protect them. Therefore, they give up their right to be protected from lawsuits if they censor content. BUT - the government is playing favorites and because it agrees with the censorship, will not deign to punish the internet companies for censoring groups/individuals/companies that the government thinks should be censored.

Do not buy into their way of thinking. Unless YOU are the arbiter of truth, you cannot personally decide on what content needs to be censored.

I agree that our children are in danger. They get bullied on Social Media and we can't see it. That is why parents always need access to their children's accounts. Not to police the children per se but to be sure that they are not being abused without our knowing it. OR, if we are not bullies ourselves, we should not allow our children to engage in bullying behavior.

One of the best decisions my wife has ever made as a mother is that during our kids' school years, during the 2-3 years when they were going to a little bit more questionable school, she worked as an aide in that same school. Just the simple fact of 'being' there, and the teachers knowing hey - these 2 kids' Mom works on campus and is well informed as to what is going on - were priceless for the protection of our kids.

 

[GaP42]

Pat, the internet and social media in particular, offers the ability to create and publish and provide virtually unfettered access to offensive material. It is not like a shop front, or magazines in wrappers, where purchase/access can be vetted. And that access has consequences - such as youth suicide, self-harm and mental health, sacrificed in support of free speech where anyone can say/publish/promote any views.

The material encouraging radical extremist terrorism is published on the net. I agree, you do have a choice as an individual to see/read - and everyone else does too -- even those who are susceptible to those views that may not have the maturity to deal with it (and we know who they are, we label them as "others" and easily dismiss their concerns). You could be accused, under the guise of the argument "you accept what you are prepared to walk by" support for the most extreme behaviour through your no censorship position (the No Decision is a Decision argument)

If you think I am conflating the protection of children with the right of adults to hear from all sides of a debate, are you trying to artificially separate the free speech debate? The act of separation could be viewed as censorship and decisions/criteria are applied. It happens in many areas, and unequally in different media.

The free speech argument is an attractive proposition: it is an absolute rule and has simplistic appeal, but I do not think it is so simple, and neither is censorship. Nanny state complaints, where one set of regulation (censorship) over-reaches to control access or behaviour, are about where/if those rules should apply or at what level they should apply. Generally, "censorship" regulation should set a minimum acceptable level of behaviour and individuals can then apply personal constraints on top of those.

Bullying - there are various legal protections in the adult/business world governing unfair threats, slander, harassment, discrimination: they are politcal/state rules - not formulated or enacted by one's own commitment within a workplace or school. Prevention is better than the cure. There are various ways to support prevention - parenting/ education. Is censorship a mechanism that can be used to prevent the spread of bullying behaviours? Any censorship mechanism would, I expect, need to be the enaction of a regulation/ political decision.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If I go to vote and decide not to decide, then did I decide on a candidate or not decide? It is as simple as that!

You implicitly asked a question but explicitly stated a different one.

In your scenario, you REALLY asked "Do I want to vote for A or do I want to vote for B?" To which a possible answer is "No to both of them. Ho, hum, I'll go home." Most of the time when you have a choice to make, the exclusion of both options is a possibility.

Your question of "did I decide or not decide" doesn't matter. Your decision of a choice would lead to an action of voting for one or the other. If your decision was "I don't like either one, I'm not going to vote", that has the same result as "I can't choose between either one so I can't vote". If you don't resolve the dilemma of choice, the reason doesn't matter. In either case, you didn't vote. There are only three ends here. Vote A, Vote B, or don't vote. (I'll take door #3, Monty...)

 

[Space Cowboy]

IT would be nice if we could Vote A and B.

 

[Lightwave]

I think the majority of people are very bad at judging the validity of what they are being told.

People tend to develop a viewpoint and then pretty much stick to it only accepting evidence which confirms their beliefs.

I admire people that can change their viewpoint based on coherent logical reasoning. I have been told by various doctors that even people who are faced with clear medical evidence that they need to change their daily habits are unable to do so.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This comes from years ago in National Lampoon. A GREAT idea would be that ALL ballots for elective office should include "None of the above" and if that choice wins, the office is vacant. It can't make new policies and is restricted in other ways (don't remember them all). But the kicker was that even if someone DOES win, any candidate that lost to "none of the above" was barred from running for public office for the next two general elections.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Pat, the internet and social media in particular, offers the ability to create and publish and provide virtually unfettered access to offensive material. It is not like a shop front, or magazines in wrappers, where purchase/access can be vetted. And that access has consequences - such as youth suicide, self-harm and mental health, sacrificed in support of free speech where anyone can say/publish/promote any views.

Ask yourself why big Tech doesn't have algorithms that ferret out bullying or other attacks that endanger children and yet they are johnny-on-the-spot when a scientific paper is published that disagrees with the leftist position or an article that presents a conservative point of view in a positive light. The "mis-information" is immediately dumped on and marked as "false" by the "fact checkers". Do they care about our children or do they care about pushing a political agenda? Also, the people who create the software that is intended to addict children (and adults) do not allow their own children to use it.

 

[jpl458]

I'm for free speech. The problem is that those who are "censoring" don't believe that they are actually "censoring" as they have the sanctimonious belief that they are combating disinformation to "protect" the public! Unfortunately the public is that gullible, which is why Biden's approval rating is still in the 30% range when it should be close to 0%.

An Orwell quote: "Free speech is my right to say what you don't want to hear."

Mark Levin had a segment on the role of the press. The press no longer views reporting neutral facts. Instead, those reporting on events write about it through a left wing advocacy lens.

Media pumps up stuff in order to sell time to ads. The news media should not be a profirt center, I rmemeber, way back, when NBC just reported actual news. It was local stations that discovered they could make prfit from jacking up the news, then the national news followed suit. Now it's all about scaring people into watching so they can sell Preparation H.

 

[Mike Krailo]

If I go to vote and decide not to decide, then did I decide on a candidate or not decide? It is as simple as that!

Sounds like you decided to waste your time after you initially decided to go and vote. That going to vote thing implies you already made your mind up who you were going to vote for before going to the ballot box, otherwise wouldn't you simple stay home and because that effectively is the same as not voting for either candidate? I can't help but think of the Star Trek episode where the crew outwit the androids with the paradox of the liar causing them to self destruct.

If you were to remain perfectly still with your eyes closed, you are making the decision not to move and keep your eyes closed. In other words, you are in control of your thoughts and which one's you act on which causes you to remain motionless. If the whole world decided to do that at the same time, would it shutdown the internet?

As far as the free speech aspect, if you remain silent about issues that are important to you or your family, or community, then you are effectively censoring yourself and not being involved in anything. Of course actions speaks louder than words, so if you instead do something about it without talking about it, that could be highly effective in getting your point across to others.