Censorship

[bastian.1343]

I know this has been touched in debates, if not recently then in the old forum. But I cannot help wondering how people feel about censorship, as I often meet people who speak of censorship as sparing the public of the "certain things that just aren't to be debated publicly".
I wonder if anyone feels this way as well... I know I don't. Having said this I do think that people shouldn't spew out random insults just to manifest their liberty to do so...

[crazy white guy]

There should be more degrees to choose from

I don't agree with any of them. I think censorship should be very minimal. It should only be done to information that is directly damaging to someone like avoiding telling a child their parents have died until they are comfortable and it wont scar them for life. Another time is for porn that would drastically change someone's perception of sex like snuff films where people are murdered and the sort.

I don't believe that children should have a fucking bubble around them in life. My parents told me what sex was when I was 8 years old and It made life a lot less confusing. I think that I would have been a lot smarter and healthier today if they told me about drugs when I was 9-12. When I look back at my experiences with drugs, they were shit. If I had done My life over I would have waiting a lot longer before experimenting with drugs.

[bastian.1343]

You're right about the protecting children, but I believe that is a parent's responsibility. No government is fit to judge how people raise their children as long as these family produce healthy, "balanced" children.

[CyberWar]

The constitution of a democratic country guarantees the freedom of speech to its citizens. However, nothing guarantees one's freedom after exercising that freedom.

The main difference between democracy and tyranny is that the latter exacts punishment on common citizens for speaking out while the former simply ignores them. As a common citizen, I see no difference - even if my words cannot earn me punishment, what good is speaking out if that will be ignored anyway?

I advise all of you to harbour no illusions about the "rights and freedoms" that democracy supposedly provides - they are, as always, reserved to the elite. "All are born equal, but some are born more equal than others."

[headcase]

I would apply the same rules to society as I do to Bombshock. No opinion or point-of-view is banned or censored so long as it's presented in the correct fashion. A calm, legitimate argument for racism, ageism, sexism or homophobia (is there a "racism" equivalent of that word?) is fine, but "kill all the blacks/gays etc" isn't. Of course, the same rules apply to the counter-argument, which we haven't really been observing as closely as I'd like.

At least, that's my gut instinct. I'm sure that view will raise problems which we might be able to address if people suggest them.

[bastian.1343]

See, in my book that doesnt define racism or similar minority-antipathies. As I view the concept of hating minorities, it has to be an irrational hatred for it to qualify as racism. Well if not, then we have a good load of racists running this country.... Well actually we do, but that's beside the point.

[headcase]

I made no reference of minorities. The same rule applies to every section of society. And racism by definition doesn't need to be rational or irrational.

[bastian.1343]

You're right. But I'm fairly sure I said "my definition", hereby referring to my own perception of the subject.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by headcase

A calm, legitimate argument for racism, ageism, sexism or homophobia (is there a "racism" equivalent of that word?)

There is. Xenophobia.

As far as censorship goes, I believe opinion should be free, but not insult, abuse or threats.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

The main difference between democracy and tyranny is that the latter exacts punishment on common citizens for speaking out while the former simply ignores them. As a common citizen, I see no difference - even if my words cannot earn me punishment, what good is speaking out if that will be ignored anyway?

Because if your views are shared by others, they can influence the democratic process. If you are the minority, yes, it will make little or no difference.

It isn't possible for everyone's views to be represented in the legal/political system. But there is a difference between a government that ignores your minority view and one that actively punishes you for it.

[bastian.1343]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

As far as censorship goes, I believe opinion should be free, but not insult, abuse or threats.

That's very true... An example of this would be the whole cartoon controversy over here.

[jrly]

Originally Posted by bastian.1343

That's very true... An example of this would be the whole cartoon controversy over here.

A few months ago, I would have said that the cartoon should never have been published because it was just an irritant/inflammatory against Islam, but now I have realized that women showing their faces is inflammatory as is alcohol and tobacco, yet many do, and the worst is that women are beaten for no reason if the husband feels like it and children are taught, if they are taught (but that is more of an income and location thing), to not question the Koran or adults in general so many become subservient. My veiws on this subject would usually class me as a racist conservative but I'm not, I just have come to hate Islam(the religion, not the people who follow it). And with censorship, I couldn't have said that in Saudi Arabia or Iran so I believe that there is no reason for censorship.

[bastian.1343]

I'm afraid the claim that children in muslim society is taught never to question the Koran is like the claim that Americans are taught that god created earth and that Darwin was a liar (I can, if you plan on questioning this refer to several places around these parts where people believe that).
My point is that there are fundamentalists in every line of faith and of course certain religions have more fundamentalists, but Islam doesn't say the things you claim in the post above. Islam accepts the message of Jesus christ and the entire bible. However, The Koran is built on the foundation of other monteistic beliefs, but eventually, like all of such religions, it was exploited, twisted and bent to suit an oppressed people with even more oppressed women.
Sharia-law, which is what is used to sentence women to horrendous punishments for next-to-no offense, is not part of any religious text but has come to be known as this because the priests upholding these customs preach as though they were. That and the general anti-muslim tendency in post-modern western society.

[jrly]

Bastian, like I said, a few months ago I would have agreed with you, but I read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and it really opened my eyes. It is possible that there is just a time differential because if you compare Islam to what Christianity looked like 700 years ago when Christianity was 1300 years old like Islam is now, so maybe it is an evolution, I don't know. But I have heard of Madrassas being built in liberal democracies and the students in the Madrassas are taught to hate the democracies that they are living. Here is some criticisms of Hirsi Ali. And here is some stuff that goes with her beliefs.

[bastian.1343]

I'm not going to get into the Hirshi Ali debate. I'm just sticking to my claim that the atrocities she experienced is Somali rather than muslim. Like with a lot of other countries, Somalia justifies a lot of injustice through Islam - much like the Sudanese government does. And about my comparing muslim countries to Christianity as it once were, I'm very certain that Somalia - for instance - would have been the exact same place as any european country if they hadn't been made an asset by colonial powers. That's as far as it goes for most African nations. Middle Eastern nations have not been under colonial rule but might as well have been when looking at most governments. And yes, most of these are justified through Islam, but my point is that this is how European monarchies were justified less than 300 years ago.

[Steve_TPF]

Here's an interesting example of free speech vs. censorship.

Originally Posted by The Australian

GUN lobbyist Ron Owen has been told he is entitled to express his homophobic views, but that he went too far with the bumper sticker: "Gay Rights? Under God's law the only rights gays have is the right to die."

Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Tribunal found Mr Owen guilty of inciting hatred against homosexuals with the bumper sticker when he parked his car outside the Cooloola Shire Council officers in Gympie, north of Brisbane.

Funny thing is, the bible actually says the same thing as his sticker. (Mind you it says the same about fornicators and adulterers too.) So does this mean anyone in possession of a bilbe is now liable?

[bastian.1343]

It also says that people eating shrimp are impure, so I doubt the bible is any sort of birthright of hate-campaigns.

[jrly]

Hows this for censorship:



It was banned in New Zealand. This is from a cradle of filth shirt for one of their cds and I am not fond of this band but I love this shirt.

Also, is this kind of nudity allowed on BS? If not I will remove the pic(or mod can do it), but then there will be censorship on a website with lots of illegal info.

Mod Edit; there are no rules in place for porn and the likes, and this is fine by me. I imagine we'd have to introduce something (like a "NSFW" system) if it became gratuitous but we're not really that kind of website anyway. - headcase

[bastian.1343]

I must admit I find that T-shirt completely harmless. But I'm sure if you showed it to a devout catholic and told that it was ordered by a muslim newspaper, they'd start a rampage too. I don't think there's anything that can't be printed or shouted from atop a hill. I just believe there are things with a few more consequences than others.