Should offensive opinions be censored from discussion?

[Chaos Isaac]

Yes, but only in the clearly not valid and being offensive for the sake of idiocy, though while I don't have a example off the top of my head, I think the extremes are clear to most people.

Oh, here's one. Like blaming the rape victim, yeah that kind of stupid opinion should be censored for wasting everyone's god damn time.

I think 99% of the time, no, it shouldn't be censored, but just a very select few should be.

 

[viscomica]

From a purely objective, even legal point of view I would say no. No, you can't and shouldn't supress opinions just because they can (or are) offensive (freedom of speech yo!)
That being said, from my own perspective the world does not exist for you not to get offended. Not getting offended by someone else's opinion is not a right and by living in a society you have to accept people are going to think different than you and sometimes they are going to think things which are (let's be honest) moronic at best. Still it's a pretty low price to pay for freedom of speech.

I'm not sure if you're answering the thread title instead of the OP's question but how exactly do you find that to be the legal viewpoint?

Well, there have been cases from the ECHR and the IACHR (I don't remember the names, but if you wanna I can get back to you on that) that state that unless you're promoting 'hate speech' (as in "let's kill all X") you can't censor opinions prior to being released to the general public. From the cases I've read in the past years I have been led to believe that even though no right is without limits, freedom of speech has a pretty large scope. I don't know if that answers the question.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

From a purely objective, even legal point of view I would say no. No, you can't and shouldn't supress opinions just because they can (or are) offensive (freedom of speech yo!)
That being said, from my own perspective the world does not exist for you not to get offended. Not getting offended by someone else's opinion is not a right and by living in a society you have to accept people are going to think different than you and sometimes they are going to think things which are (let's be honest) moronic at best. Still it's a pretty low price to pay for freedom of speech.

I'm not sure if you're answering the thread title instead of the OP's question but how exactly do you find that to be the legal viewpoint?

Well, there have been cases from the ECHR and the IACHR (I don't remember the names, but if you wanna I can get back to you on that) that state that unless you're promoting 'hate speech' (as in "let's kill all X") you can't censor opinions prior to being released to the general public. From the cases I've read in the past years I have been led to believe that even though no right is without limits, freedom of speech has a pretty large scope. I don't know if that answers the question.

So I'll take it you weren't talking about the club scenario the OP mentioned? Makes sense then. I think most people are replying more to the title.

 

[AidoZonkey]

Censorship of opinions is, has and always will be wrong, everybody should be able to say what they want to say without fear of being hushed up. Being offended can take many different forms. People can get offended over nothing, so saying you cant say something, just because it might offended someone, would be like censoring speech all together

However, this does not give you the right to not be punished because of what you say. If you say something, that aims to purely offended a person, the you should be punished for saying it. Punishment is different to censorship and often people forget this, you can say what you want but you cant control how people will react to what you have said

 

[Zen Bard]

Galileo had the "offensive" view that the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe and that it actually revolved around the sun.

Turns out he was right.

Sometimes you can benefit from opinions that challenge your worldview.

And sometimes, you don't.

Either way, no opinion should be censored. It should be left to the individuals to decide if they want to agree with it or dismiss it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Anything is a better alternative to saying being offended isn't a choice its, "In my nature"

Apparently even if it's not true.

You need a better hypotheses for why what offends you does not offend me. You cant just claim its in your nature to be offended by a statement but not in mine. This "nature" is inscrutable and as such you can simply claim it to be present every time someone is offended and absent when someone is not.

Well, that's good, because I didn't claim anything of the sort.

It doesn't hold up to scientific inquiry.

Except you're not holding anything to scientific inquiry, as I've already mentioned. Why should other arguments meet a criteria this one does not?

Are you going to address what I actually said, which actually goes to the nature of scientific inquiry, or are you going to stump me about this "nature" argument?

No.

But it won't hold me back from giving my own extreme views in responce though.
So they pretty much can expect it to backfire if I do decide to give my opinion about whatever topic it is.
Extremely defensive to anything LGBT related for one. And my view on religion is rather extremely negative.

And then we see if they take it with the aplomb they expect others to take it.

Spoiler: the answer is usually "no."

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Galileo had the "offensive" view that the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe and that it actually revolved around the sun.

Turns out he was right.

Sometimes you can benefit from opinions that challenge your worldview.

And sometimes, you don't.

Either way, no opinion should be censored. It should be left to the individuals to decide if they want to agree with it or dismiss it.

Err, Galileo had growing support and acceptance for the heliocentric nature of the solar system... right up until he insulted the Pope. Might have been a bad plan.

Which is what that whole thing was about, and kinda fits as commentary for how strawman-y the Internet gets.

 

[Therumancer]

No, "offensive" content should not be censored at all. Almost every civil liberties case, whether you agree it or not, began with things that could be considered "offensive" at the time. It also opens the door for banning and censoring all forms of media on the grounds of sexual content or violence.

It's tempted for a political movement in the theroes of victory to want to censor the opposition to ensure their position but that's a very dangerous way to think, especially when enough people are disagreeing with you to make it an issue. It was wrong when Conservatives wanted to do it, and it's wrong when Liberals currently want to do it. Believing your righteousness is self evident is no excuse. Had we allowed this horror movies would likely be banned (especially in the UK due to the "Video Nasties" list) as would PnP RPGs, etc... not to mention consider things like Playboy and the like which have constantly been under attack are feminist publications (for those who actually know what real feminism is, the current "feminists" are not true feminists, but that's an entirely different discussion, no.. you cannot separate it into "waves" to try and justify yourself).

Right now I find the censorship of "hate speech" and the like disturbing because the motivation behind it is simply that the various issues such as gay rights are so heavily divided in reality, the media controlling the narrative doesn't change reality. You have issues with entire state populations and their elected officials being suppressed under Federal Authority and the like. Rather that doing things properly which was to gradually change people's minds over a number of generations so they elect people who will do things, we've had a lot of social reforms forced through with a sledge hammer and a lot of people realize the situation is a lot more tentative than is broadcast.... on a lot of issues, so censorship especially now seems unusually attractive, since banning "hate speech" and the like allows for an official stranglehold on communications, not just a practical one.

As enough time passes and if people are gradually converted, the need for "censorship" on social issues likewise passes because when minds change so does the expression of "nastiness" to the current perspective.

Simply put, if people really believe all those "aging xenophobic conservatives" are on their last gasp and will be dying out in a few years, The Republican Party already being dead... there is no real need for censorship or banning hate speech since it will all vanish on any notable scale before too long.

This is not a new issue or question. What side I'm on should be obvious though because as a general rule I believe any form of censorship is wrong, including opinions and perspectives I disagree with, or even rudeness directed at me which is why I don't report people on this site (or in general). If your big enough to talk, your big enough to be on the receiving end.

 

[San Martin]

I saw some kids playing football the other day. They were all boys. A girl approached and asked to play but they replied "no, football is not for girls". I could have censored that offensive opinion by beating them up and stealing their milk money, but I took the high road and left them to it. The girl, put in her rightful place, went and joined a netball team. Case closed.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

snip

Maybe instead of science I should have addressed the issue in terms of logic. If you understand logical statements, you will see why you assertion about "feelings" amounts to circular reasoning. You claim that the reason you get offended is because you have certain feelings. And the way we know you have these feelings is because you get offended. That's circular reasoning. The statement "I get offended because I have feelings." can be translated to "I get offended because I get offended." That is a tautology.

 

[CaitSeith]

The question is too broad to give a proper answer. Like, what kind of people would be meeting there that would require banning offences? If there is censorship it should be for the common sense of avoiding the offences to escalate into something worse (like someone ending up with a broken nose)

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Of course not.


How else would people know to challenge these ideas (or have their own challenged) if they aren't presented with them or willing to engage with those who hold them?

Discussion begets knowledge.
Knowledge begets understanding.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Hmm no it's more like "That offends me", and when asked why there will be a myriad of reasons.

For example shouting at a girl that she's a fucking n***** that needs to die will most likely offend her because it's telling her you would rather she's dead due to extreme racism. There's zero she can do to change that, and it's generally terrifying.

I can show why the argument about feelings is circular. Let me show an argument in a series of statements. Each statement will be numbered with a (#).

(1)Girl 1: "When someone calls me a f****** n*****, I have no choice but to be offended."
(2)Girl 2: "Why dont I get offend when someone calls me a f****** n*****"
(3)Girl 1: "Because you dont have my feelings"
(4)Girl 2: "How do you know I dont have your feelings"
(5)Girl 1: "Because you dont get offended when someone calls you a f****** n*****"
(2)Girl 2: "Why dont I get offend when someone calls me a f****** n*****"
(3)Girl 1: "Because you dont have my feelings"

You should be able to see that statements 2-5 will repeat to infinity. I.E. the argument will go 1,2,3,4,5,2,3,4,5.....

This creates and endless loop of circular reasoning.

 

[Flathole]

I didn't read any of this thread but the title.

Who is the judge of what is "offensive" and what is "acceptable?" Congress? Vatican City? Oprah Winfrey? Bill O'reily? And with censoring comes codes, i.e "Adolf Hitler" and the number "88" (google "adolf hitler 88" w/o quotes), leading to countless probable faux paus', like an unknowing football fan proudly wearing his favorite player's jersey- NO.88- then going into a Jewish restaurant where the owner is aware of the hidden meaning and is also on edge, maybe they got robbed recently, and tells the football fan to fuck off or they'll call the police, and the football fan leaves, perplexed, deeply insulted, hungry and disappointed, because he was expecting some delicious matzah balls.

There are lots of opinions that I honestly wish didn't exist, such as the opinion that censorship is justified. But they do, and oppressing them won't make them disappear. This doesn't mean I'm toothless, I can still debate, investigate/expose, ignore, or insult what I find distasteful.

Now, if there's a forum or discussion where there's a specific, stated topic for discussion, it makes sense to discourage irrelevant topics. But irrelevant opinions aren't inherently offensive. Even still, irrelevant opinions can't really be controlled legally.

Lastly, screaming FIRE in a crowded theater isn't an opinion, it's a statement. The person shouting isn't telling anyone what to do, just informing them of an aspect of their environment. That isn't to say outright liars should be immune to punishment.

I'm guessing the OP just wanted to spark a conversation about the issue.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

No of course not. But don't get all uppity when everyone says you're an asshole. Freedom of speech includes "you're a piece of shit." and "go fuck yourself".

Depends what sort environment you want, I guess. If you start with the end in mind, and use your example quotes to project to that end... I think you'd wind up with a fairly hostile environment of screaming apes. I, personally, see little in that which is appealing. I enjoy a healthy debate, even on controversial topics, but only with the frame of a respectful environment. I guess you can defend freedom of speech to the bitter end, but you will chase away all the people that enjoy reasonable discussions, and in their place, you will have a pit of howler monkeys, or a barren forum.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

No of course not. But don't get all uppity when everyone says you're an asshole. Freedom of speech includes "you're a piece of shit." and "go fuck yourself".

Depends what sort environment you want, I guess. If you start with the end in mind, and use your example quotes to project to that end... I think you'd wind up with a fairly hostile environment of screaming apes. I, personally, see little in that which is appealing. I enjoy a healthy debate, even on controversial topics, but only with the frame of a respectful environment. I guess you can defend freedom of speech to the bitter end, but you will chase away all the people that enjoy reasonable discussions, and in their place, you will have a pit of howler monkeys, or a barren forum.

People are taking me a touch too literally here, I should have been clearer. There are certain people who constantly argue for free speech but freak the fuck out when what they're saying is criticised.

Ah. I read it a couple times, but wasn't sure- I almost deleted my reply, but I guess I misread it in the end.

 

[Something Amyss]

Maybe instead of science I should have addressed the issue in terms of logic.

Are you admitting to being unscientific? Because you were accusing me of such, but now you won't address me on a scientific level. That seems like a concession to me, but I'd like to know if you still think you can cut it in the realm of science.

If you understand logical statements, you will see why you assertion about "feelings" amounts to circular reasoning.

No, I see why the strawman of "feelings" is circular reasoning. Except you're not addressing it in the context in which it was originally used, nor are you addressing it in my context, nor were you willing to define your terms. An argument can be logically sound and still rely on informal fallacies, such as the notion of feelings because feelings.

You claim that the reason you get offended is because you have certain feelings.

Not unless you accept my terms, which you clearly haven't. I suggested that "feelings" might be defined as "emotional response to stimulus," which is still a rough definition, but one that would seemingly make Pluvia's statements true. We can actually measure the physiological effects of these responses. This is both why the "lie detector" exists and why it's an unreliable tool for detecting lies.

And the way we know you have these feelings is because you get offended.

I bet you can't show me where I said that. Because I didn't. I note you "snipped" my last post.

That's circular reasoning. The statement "I get offended because I have feelings." can be translated to "I get offended because I get offended." That is a tautology.

I'm actually pretty sure nobody said this except you. That's the problem.

So, can you show me where anyone actually said that in this thread? Because it looks like you're slowly moving the goalposts.

The idea that "different people feel different" is a simplistic one, but accurate for the initial question you posed. Accept that.

G1: "I find it offensive when someone calls me fucking n***** that needs to die"
G2: "Why don't I get offended when someone calls me a fucking n***** that needs to die?"
G1: "Probably because we're not the same person"

An the best part is that we have entire fields of psychology devoted to this.

Edit: whoops! Left out a couple words!