Censorship.

[Emil]

First I define Censorship

Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

..................................................................................................................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...................Wikipedia

I lived for 32 years in a state where censorship existed at all levels and I have developed an allergy to censorship.
I know exactly what is censorship what does that mean and what consequences it has.
Reasons for censorship is the following: "You are so stupid that you can not handle the information we hold." or "We are so smart that we have the absolute truth so any opinion contrary to our opinion about a particular topic is a lie."
They also believe that I can not distinguish truth from falsehood.

When someone supports the idea of censorship I do not think it refers to he personally should not be informed.
I think he indirectly makes me stupid and I take that as an insult to me.
So I am all for freedom of expression and against any censorship.
The only exception may be for children in an educational purpose.

What do you think, may be restricted the freedom of expression?
Do you have examples?

 

[Stryder]

Let's say a freelance journalist invades your home by placing spy cameras. They record you in your day to day life, anything from the mundane chores around the house, flicking the television from channel to channel and then the "more private and intimate" aspects of your life. (Say "venting your sexual frustration")

The Journalist then decides to publish this in all it's glory, in fact you even find the drafted publication is edited in such a way that it removes the mundane aspects and concentrates on making you look a sexual deviant.

You lawyer up and say "I'll sue you if you make this public" or make other threats in an attempt to dowse the release (perhaps inventing a counter scandal).

The journalist argue's that he has the right to free speech, he has the right to freedom of expression and the right to undermine "Censorship" (While also undermining an number of Human Rights in the process).

This is just one pro-example (Devils Advocate here) of where censorship has it's uses, in using censorship to stop something that would be publicly damaging to yourself, family or friends you aren't claiming anyone is stupid or insulting anyone, you are just generally protecting yourself and them. (Censorship is obviously about protection, it's just when arguments are raise about it, it's usually because some people don't want to be the protected party. In reality they probably aren't, however to subject them to the uncensored output would likely also allow those that are being censored from to observe the uncensored version)

 

[hypewaders]

Working (and playing) well with others requires self-censorship in our present evolutionary stage 1. We often perceive provocative thought and expression as threats. In order to suppress emotional reactionism and a resultant breakdown in collaborative endeavor, we are socially conditioned to self-censorship. This process might be described as censorship external to the individual.

We should never consider unwarranted censorship as legitimate. That is, if the agents of censorship and their motives are deliberately obscured, then the censorship is not legitimate. If the rationale for discretion is sufficiently valid, it is understood and put into practice as self-censorship on the part of informed and socially-responsible individuals, and where disruptive expressions can be shown to do needless harm. This is the familiar proscriptions on crying "wolf!", or "fire!" without warrant. Even governments require for their legitimacy controls on official expressions that may cause alarm or panic entailing greater actual risks than an exaggerated or fabricated threat. In a healthy democracy, a government can be censored, or controlled in its expression by the public. And more commonly as we all know, individuals who ignore censorship are often censured by the societies they disrupt. In the context of a public forum like this message board, most participants agree with a social contract and self-censor their communications to keep aggressive and offensive thoughts from transmission. Some individuals require assistance with their self-discipline. So censorship can have justifiable finite place- but never in the absence of clear justification that may be challenged by those subject to it; never in absence of a clear majority consensus.

In my opinion, whenever censorship chafes at our freedoms, it is fitting to closely examine the agents of censorship and their motives, ascertaining whether they are acting under warrant; acting by authority of a valid social contract (or not). If not, then I believe it is a moral and often necessary choice to disobey and resist unwarranted censorship, and to expose warrantless censors as oppressors of the inalienable rights and freedoms of sentient beings.

-------------------------------​

1. I mention this in passing, because it may happen that we are evolving a greater capacity for accepting challenging information without excessive emotional reaction. Such a trend would bring a reduction in cause for censorship in many contexts.

 

[cosmictraveler]

What do you think, may be restricted the freedom of expression?
Do you have examples?

Look at the Wikileaks release of secret documents that will expose people who work undercover and their lives are now at risk of being killed.

If the news media shows where police have been placed to give the person whom they are trying to find the information that could jepordize their lives as he could easily spot them and shoot them.

If a war was going on and secret documents are released to tell when a certain fight will take place then all those involved could be at risk of death.

There are many other examples that I can list but these should show you a few in which freedom of expression should be held in check, if don't think so I 'd think you have no reguards for others safety or well being.

 

[Emil]

Working (and playing) well with others requires self-censorship in our present evolutionary stage 1. We often perceive provocative thought and expression as threats. In order to suppress emotional reactionism and a resultant breakdown in collaborative endeavor, we are socially conditioned to self-censorship. This process might be described as censorship external to the individual.

Since the emergence of humanity there was self-censorship.
It is what some call as Super ego and is in continuous development, but that's not what I want to talk about.

We should never consider unwarranted censorship as legitimate. That is, if the agents of censorship and their motives are deliberately obscured, then the censorship is not legitimate. If the rationale for discretion is sufficiently valid, it is understood and put into practice as self-censorship on the part of informed and socially-responsible individuals, and where disruptive expressions can be shown to do needless harm. This is the familiar proscriptions on crying "wolf!", or "fire!" without warrant. Even governments require for their legitimacy controls on official expressions that may cause alarm or panic entailing greater actual risks than an exaggerated or fabricated threat. In a healthy democracy, a government can be censored, or controlled in its expression by the public. And more commonly as we all know, individuals who ignore censorship are often censured by the societies they disrupt. In the context of a public forum like this message board, most participants agree with a social contract and self-censor their communications to keep aggressive and offensive thoughts from transmission. Some individuals require assistance with their self-discipline. So censorship can have justifiable finite place- but never in the absence of clear justification that may be challenged by those subject to it; never in absence of a clear majority consensus.

I also do not call into question your option to say what you want or do not say what you want.
I also do not call into question the option of legal persons (associations, organizations, etc ...) to say or not what he wants.
Relationship with the state is more complicated.State representatives must inform me properly and they do not consider me as a stupid .But also I do not want to talk about it.
I do not want to talk about the politics of the site, that is its right and if im not like I only do my own site.

I want to talk about one thing.
If you agree that I be sentenced and put to jail for my belief and my opinions?

 

[Ophiolite]

I oppose censorship, even in the classic case of crying 'Fire' in a crowded cinema. Lynch mobs will take care of that sort of behaviour. TANSTAAFL.

 

[Emil]

Look at the Wikileaks release of secret documents that will expose people who work undercover and their lives are now at risk of being killed.

If the news media shows where police have been placed to give the person whom they are trying to find the information that could jepordize their lives as he could easily spot them and shoot them.

If a war was going on and secret documents are released to tell when a certain fight will take place then all those involved could be at risk of death.

There are many other examples that I can list but these should show you a few in which freedom of expression should be held in check, if don't think so I 'd think you have no reguards for others safety or well being.

Why you not give the example the keeping secrets of products?The industrial know-how ?.
I believe that you do not understand the importance of media freedom, the importance of free expression of opinion.

 

[Emil]

This is just one pro-example (Devils Advocate here) of where censorship has it's uses, in using censorship to stop something that would be publicly damaging to yourself, family or friends you aren't claiming anyone is stupid or insulting anyone, you are just generally protecting yourself and them. (Censorship is obviously about protection, it's just when arguments are raise about it, it's usually because some people don't want to be the protected party. In reality they probably aren't, however to subject them to the uncensored output would likely also allow those that are being censored from to observe the uncensored version)

Yes,
but if you legalize censorship, who is the judge who will decide what to censor and what not?
I'll tell you then censorship will be used to cover up corruption or to maintain power.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Why you not give the example the keeping secrets of products?

Because you wanted examples of where releasing ANY secret information should'nt be allowed, you never asked for other examples. Don't ask a general question if you are only interested in a single question about a specfic thing.

I will give you an example of why certain products information shouldn't be released to the general public. Let us say you made a new soda and its ingredients were only known to you as to how to mix certain things together and come up with your new soda. You wouldn't want everyone to know how this formula was made would you because if others knew then your idea would be copied by others and sold cheaper putting you out of business.

 

[Emil]

Because you wanted examples of where releasing ANY secret information should'nt be allowed, you never asked for other examples. Don't ask a general question if you are only interested in a single question about a specfic thing.

I will give you an example of why certain products information shouldn't be released to the general public. Let us say you made a new soda and its ingredients were only known to you as to how to mix certain things together and come up with your new soda. You wouldn't want everyone to know how this formula was made would you because if others knew then your idea would be copied by others and sold cheaper putting you out of business.

Yes
I might not have been clear enough.
The question is:
If you agree that I be sentenced and put to jail for my belief and my opinions?
If you have an example for which I should be tried and put in jail, for my belief or for my opinions ?

 

[cosmictraveler]

A example would be any act of treason against your country.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What do you think, may be restricted the freedom of expression? Do you have examples?

As an American I am an enthusiastic supporter of free speech. However, one thing we know about real life is that there are no absolutes. (Well, to be consistent, "almost no absolutes." )

We have some very explicit restrictions on free speech, and in general I am content with them. Most of them prohibit deliberately lying, in very specific circumstances.

• You may not tell lies about a person if they will result in damage to his reputation, business, etc. This does not apply to "public figures" such as politicians, entertainers, athletes, prominent businessmen, etc. We may say whatever we want about them, and usually do.
• You may not tell lies to a person that encourage him to do something he would not otherwise do, resulting in a benefit to you. This is the crime of "fraud," for example, telling him that a ring is made of solid gold so he will buy it from you at a high price, only to discover that it is gold plating. However, this also logically covers other kinds of lies which, I believe, do not require the separate laws that they have. For example, if you yell "fire" in a dark, crowded theater, you are lying to all of the people, encouraging them to jump up out of their seats and scramble around screaming in a panic and looking for the doors. This is for the purpose of your entertainment, a benefit to you, and therefore qualifies as fraud.
• You may not conspire to commit a crime. Sitting with a group of friends and making plans to rob a bank is illegal, even if you aren't smart enough to actually make it work.
• You cannot incite a crowd of people to riot. To me this seems like a form of conspiracy, since you are encouraging them to disturb the peace, which is a crime.
• You may not advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Again, since the violent overthrow of a sovereign government is illegal, encouraging someone to do that is conspiracy. I don't think we need this law either.
• You may not reproduce copyrighted material. You may quote portions for the purpose of analyzing or criticizing it, or for citations in an argument or a work of your own. But you cannot sing a song, read a chapter from a book, photocopy an instruction manual, etc., except in extremely limited circumstances that are not public and not for profit.
• You may not utter "fighting words," which means an insult so horrible that it is calculated to start a fight. "Oh I've met your mother, she danced naked at our fraternity party thirty years ago." That sort of thing. Since this law's purpose is to maintain peace, I suppose it's okay, but it isn't often enforced.
• A new category of "hate speech" has recently been defined. It generally concerns things like racial insults. I'm not sure how I feel about it since it's fairly new and I haven't seen it in action. Perhaps it's a generalization of "fighting words."

If you agree that I be sentenced and put to jail for my belief and my opinions?

No. We must not punish people for what they believe. Obviously this is likely to bring us into murky waters. Many "evil" beliefs are harmless so long as you don't act on them. But what if you believe that it should not be illegal to overthrow the government by force? The belief is certainly okay, but what if you start talking about it? How can you discuss your belief without becoming guilty of advocating the violent overthrow of the government? That advocacy is a crime. If you get together with a bunch of friends who agree with you and start talking about it, how can you not end up discussing ways of overthrowing the government by violence? That discussion is conspiracy.

 

[Emil]

A example would be any act of treason against your country.

How many times I heard this since 32 years!

 

[Emil]

I am an enthusiastic supporter of free speech.

Me too, and as I stated in post 1 I have developed an allergy ( over reaction ) to censorship.

We have some very explicit restrictions on free speech, and in general I am content with them. Most of them prohibit deliberately lying, in very specific circumstances.

• You may not tell lies about a person if they will result in damage to his reputation, business, etc. This does not apply to "public figures" such as politicians, entertainers, athletes, prominent businessmen, etc. We may say whatever we want about them, and usually do.
• You may not tell lies to a person that encourage him to do something he would not otherwise do, resulting in a benefit to you. This is the crime of "fraud," for example, telling him that a ring is made of solid gold so he will buy it from you at a high price, only to discover that it is gold plating. However, this also logically covers other kinds of lies which, I believe, do not require the separate laws that they have. For example, if you yell "fire" in a dark, crowded theater, you are lying to all of the people, encouraging them to jump up out of their seats and scramble around screaming in a panic and looking for the doors. This is for the purpose of your entertainment, a benefit to you, and therefore qualifies as fraud.
• You may not conspire to commit a crime. Sitting with a group of friends and making plans to rob a bank is illegal, even if you aren't smart enough to actually make it work.
• You cannot incite a crowd of people to riot. To me this seems like a form of conspiracy, since you are encouraging them to disturb the peace, which is a crime.
• You may not advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Again, since the violent overthrow of a sovereign government is illegal, encouraging someone to do that is conspiracy. I don't think we need this law either.
• You may not reproduce copyrighted material. You may quote portions for the purpose of analyzing or criticizing it, or for citations in an argument or a work of your own. But you cannot sing a song, read a chapter from a book, photocopy an instruction manual, etc., except in extremely limited circumstances that are not public and not for profit.
• You may not utter "fighting words," which means an insult so horrible that it is calculated to start a fight. "Oh I've met your mother, she danced naked at our fraternity party thirty years ago." That sort of thing. Since this law's purpose is to maintain peace, I suppose it's okay, but it isn't often enforced.
• A new category of "hate speech" has recently been defined. It generally concerns things like racial insults. I'm not sure how I feel about it since it's fairly new and I haven't seen it in action. Perhaps it's a generalization of "fighting words."

In the present cases I have nothing to do but I give you right.

Many "evil" beliefs are harmless so long as you don't act on them. But what if you believe that it should not be illegal to overthrow the government by force? The belief is certainly okay, but what if you start talking about it? How can you discuss your belief without becoming guilty of advocating the violent overthrow of the government? That advocacy is a crime. If you get together with a bunch of friends who agree with you and start talking about it, how can you not end up discussing ways of overthrowing the government by violence? That discussion is conspiracy.

Yes, and here you are right
but mention that they must demonstrate clearly the case if not, can become very serious deviation from democracy.

 

[Emil]

If you know other specific cases where Censorship by the State
is justified, and that would be prohibited by law.

 

[Raithere]

How many times I heard this since 32 years!

This is where the structure of the judicial system becomes important.

That the public maintains control of the process of conviction and that trials are open and public. This helps to prevent charges from being levied, tried, and convicted in secret by the government.

Also that a system of appeals exist, where the convicted may be afforded a new hearing if they can demonstrate factual, legal, or procedural errors occurred during their conviction.

~Raithere

 

[karachikarachi22]

This is where the structure of the judicial system becomes important.

That the public maintains control of the process of conviction and that trials are open and public. This helps to prevent charges from being levied, tried, and convicted in secret by the government.
~Raithere

When this does not occur, when the process of trial and conviction is not made public due to the detrimental effect it could have on the victim. This is an example when censorship is needed. In a case like this the censorship of case details is just. As further victimizing a victim by releasing case details fundamentally perverts justice.

There are many instances where censorship is warranted as listed by fraggle, however what constitutes censorship is subjective, and obviously as the material is not released to the public, what is deemed to be 'censorable material' cannot be criticized by the public.

An obvious example is freedom of speech, what one person deems to be speech thats sole purpose is to incite violence another person may deem to be the truth...the subjective nature of what one deems to be censorable is heavily flawed. an example of this being scientists that where reprimanded because of disagreement with the church, although giving a blanket immunity for free speech leads to protection for people who's sole intent is to incite violence it seems ANY censorship leads to much potential abuse and corruption of democracy.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Hitchens has a brilliant talk on freedom of speech where he references this the implication being that censoring one voice (even if that voices sole purpose is unjust) leads to the silencing of voices that could make a valid point.

 

[Emil]

But what do you think about public "political" processes during communism.
Which often were gategorisite as crimes against state security.
A simple meet and talk with a stranger where you disagreed with communism could be so categorized.
An attempt to flee across the border was so categorized.
Sometimes a case was dealt with some non-political but everyone knew that the man was uncomfortable for communist political power and that was condemned.
All these processes have been public meetings to get scared.
During communism, I was afraid to tell a joke as a political hue may end up being condemned as incitement against state security.
Why only if you gone through such experience you can appreciate the democracy?
I think, you do not appreciate freedom because you do not know what is lack of freedom.

 

[Raithere]

When this does not occur, when the process of trial and conviction is not made public due to the detrimental effect it could have on the victim. This is an example when censorship is needed. In a case like this the censorship of case details is just. As further victimizing a victim by releasing case details fundamentally perverts justice.

The main thrust of my point was that the public maintains control of the process, that trials are not conducted in secret by the government. Certainly it is warranted to censor some of the details of some cases from the public at large. Protection of witnesses and victims primarily.

~Raithere