Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Censorship vs Freedom of Speech
DUN DUN DUN. Guess what I'm studying right now. I opened up a discussion here because I'm really interested in censorship and freedom of speech and the conflicts between them, but since I'm doing a correspondence course, I don't have anyone to actually discuss it with.
My thoughts: Freedom of speech overrules censorship. As someone who is hard to insult, it never bothers me to hear what people say. However, censorship does bother me; why can some people be insulted while others can't? Some images shown, others not? Why sacrifice plot for the minds of the young ones who shouldn't be watching it in the first place?
My (perfect-ish) version of censorship: A 'flap', so to say, to hide it from the immediate eyes of people. In order to see what must be censorship, they have to lift up that flap. It may be such things as, say, parental controls (which is in most TVs) or a link or two in front of 'naughty' sites - my favorite system is having a small blurb that ends with saying, "link's way down there, not where it says 'link').
So, what's more important to you? How would you change censorship or freedom of speech? Any other thoughts?
My thoughts: Freedom of speech overrules censorship. As someone who is hard to insult, it never bothers me to hear what people say. However, censorship does bother me; why can some people be insulted while others can't? Some images shown, others not? Why sacrifice plot for the minds of the young ones who shouldn't be watching it in the first place?
My (perfect-ish) version of censorship: A 'flap', so to say, to hide it from the immediate eyes of people. In order to see what must be censorship, they have to lift up that flap. It may be such things as, say, parental controls (which is in most TVs) or a link or two in front of 'naughty' sites - my favorite system is having a small blurb that ends with saying, "link's way down there, not where it says 'link').
So, what's more important to you? How would you change censorship or freedom of speech? Any other thoughts?
Comments
About freedom of speech:
Insulting people or screaming "FIRE" in a crowded place are not what's meant by freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is there so you can take part in a public discussion about a political topic. And while it is important that public discussion is not influenced by powerful groups, it is also important to protect private information. (See The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum, which I never read, but I'm referring to it anyway) That's why there's press legislation, which essentially is a type of censorship. Also, you can voice just about any opinion in the so-called free world without having to fear legal consequences. The only exception I can think of right now is that you'll be arrested if you publically say "There was no such thing as the holocaust" in Germany, which doesn't bother me on any level.
About freedom of information exchange:
That's the more complex part, because it includes problems such as surveillance of communication vs. cryptography, internet anonymity vs. saving of IP-adresses by providers (who don't want to do that either, but politicians want to force them by passing laws stating they have to), piracy vs. DRM, and a whole lot of other technological and legal issues. I don't really have an opinion on how laws should be concerning this, but as a general direction, surveillance&censorship=bad.
To dig a bit deeper, it isn't my experience that the non-white people I interact with are more likely to insult me due to my race. In general, the only people I have seen exchanging racial epithets, both white and non-white, are ignoramuses. What should anyone care what they have to say about anything?
More to my previous point: who really cares what some comedian says? It still has bugger all to do with what is constitutionally protected. If some black comedian wants to do a bit making fun of white guys, he can. If he's any good, I bet I'd be able to laugh: there is humor potential in everything. If he's no good, simply spouting racist rubbish, I'd have changed the channel already...
Why can a teacher not tell a parent their child is an idiot blatantly, without getting in trouble?
Freedom of Speech doesn't seem to protect everybody. A student at my school was jailed for a crime. The next day, students wore t-shirts saying "FREE -insert kid's name here". The school made them change their shirts, why?
Children are little adults with less knowledge and experience. That means they have less temperance. What they see or hear cannot hurt them, unless it was meant to hurt them.
I believe everyone is responsible for their own response to speech. If you're offended, fine, you can even say so, but under no circumstances do you have some legal right not to hear it. If someone offends you, and you complain, and they refuse to respond, then that's that.
The private world kind of works that way: some TV station airs something, people bitch, and the station either changes something voluntarily to make their viewers feel better, or they don't. Then you get the FCC coming along, an agency who is supposed to oversee the proper technical use of radio communications, and they want to fine you for broadcasting certain things. Of course, with rare exception (such as child pornography), no type of broadcast is actually illegal; all the FCC can do is fine you.
What sucks is when public entities overstep their bounds, either on the grounds that the people they are oppressing have no rights because they are institutionalized (i.e. children in school), or that they've got the guns, so shut up (e.g. police officers and the government).
Ultimately, I believe in a practical world, where everyone is can only do what they can actually do. The letter of the law is unimportant when people don't follow it. If people censor you, and you want to do something about it, then do it. You can complain, but you can't expect anything to happen. Complaining can make you feel better, but it's always an error to expect the complaint itself to result in any particular action.
Of course, try telling that to Digg, or the Internet in general. =P
You know, if you get a traffic ticket in NYC (or Buffalo, or Albany, or Rochester), you aren't actually being tried for a crime. They have a special bureau which bypasses the courts. Sure, there are cops involved, and processes which sound courtly. But unlike a real court, they don't have to let you state your case, or defend yourself. However, they can't put in you in jail, either, since they aren't courts. They can just fine you. Also, they have a mandatory minimum conviction rate. It's a money-making machine that was voted in by "the people of New York".
Somewhere along the line, we got the term "law" confused with "rules". Legislative government, inspired by the implied powers of the federal congress, believes that they own the structure of all public processes by default, and therefore define all possible things. So they made it a "law" that you have to pay the state if a cop decides you were speeding.
In much the same way, the FCC is backed up by "laws" that say you have to pay. This is nothing new; this is the country with the IRS that takes your money before you owe it, and the Federal Reserve, in whose arbitrary appointedness which we trust to prevent our currency from utterly collapsing.
So, yeah, you could say it's "illegal", but not like theft and murder are illegal.
That's BS. There is information that, even if imparted without the intent to harm, will convince children to behave in a manner that can cause harm to themselves, directly or indirectly. This is because children do not possess (or simply do not use) the ability to predict the consequences of their actions accurately, or do not understand the potential consequences of certain actions. While we do not need censorship, it is important for parents or guardians to monitor or even potentially control a child's access to media. Of course, parents do not always do this, which is why other people use censorship as a failsafe. This leads to a question: Which would you rather have, an uncensored society where an unmonitored child could access media with a potentially dangerous perceived message and hurt themselves, or one where people bitch and moan about not being able to see their gore or porn, while young children are not exposed to it and, should I say, be given the wrong impression about what it is okay to do?
My school vice principal won't let students wear trench coats because he thinks they are a distraction. A/D?
>>; Things like Daisy Dukes and such aren't permitted due to it being distracting. What they should ban as well is those tight jeans on them pretty girls. I've nearly walked into walls. Curse my damned hormones!
My main argument against the 'protect our children'-type of censorship is that what is considered bad varies widely between countries. The US censorship is considered being prudish but not caring very much about violence. Over here, nudity means nothing at all, but they censor games in ridiculous ways because of violence. If I ever get to meet the guy who had the idea to replace the soldiers in Half Life 1 with robots in the German version, he will die a horrible death. A horrible public death, because I want the deterrant factor.