The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

[Westaway]

Are you kidding? Getting a bunch of people to shout someone off the podium because you don't like what they're saying isn't censorship?

 

[UberPubert]

So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

It has a certain weight and negative aura to it, so its great for making something sound worse than it is.

'she wants game creators to put more thought into how they design and create certain elements' sounds reasonable, and harder to argue with. 'she wants to censor videogames' is much more villainous and much more easier to argue against.

It certainly invites the metaphorical torches and pitchforks.

I just read this and thought it was a really special example.

"Censorship" is wrong, and mis-used, I'm told.

"Torches and pitchforks" is okay, even when it just refers to a group of people expressing dissent.

Because it's easier to characterize people who disagree with you as an angry mob than to acknowledge they're rational human beings with different points of view.

 

[RoonMian]

If this is in relation to calls for elements in games to be banned being called censorship well yes they already to do that in China, Germany and Australia frequently and it's textbook censorship.

No, Germany does not censor. Germany just has laws for youth protection and against incitement of popular hatred. One poses regulations, the other is a criminal offense. Both are not censorship.

 

[The Deadpool]

I have to be with Bob on this one, just because you have the right to free speech, that doesn't mean you have the right to a platform to speak it from.

There is a difference between LEGAL and MORAL.

If you are trying to reach the truth, silencing any argument that contradicts yours, while legal, is dishonest, and thus immoral. And, depending on your argument, harmful.

I mean, imagine if during the civil rights movement a bunch of rich, conservative people convinced news outlets to NOT report the exploits of Martin Luther King. I mean, it's legal. News outlets can report whatever they want. But would it be "right"?

 

[SnowWookie]

Getting a bunch of people to shout someone off the podium because you don't like what they're saying isn't censorship?

Correct. You have understood the central point of the video. Pat yourself on the back.

No-one is saying it's a good thing to do, merely that it is not censorship.

The problem is a lack of public space. And by space, I don't just mean physical space (although that's an issue too), I mean metaphorical space. It is bad when private interests control all of the media. For example, the idea that political debates are held on a commercial news channel (with a specific agenda, be it Fox or MSNBC) should be of great concern.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

It has a certain weight and negative aura to it, so its great for making something sound worse than it is.

'she wants game creators to put more thought into how they design and create certain elements' sounds reasonable, and harder to argue with. 'she wants to censor videogames' is much more villainous and much more easier to argue against.

It certainly invites the metaphorical torches and pitchforks.

I just read this and thought it was a really special example.

"Censorship" is wrong, and mis-used, I'm told.

"Torches and pitchforks" is okay, even when it just refers to a group of people expressing dissent.

Because it's easier to characterize people who disagree with you as an angry mob than to acknowledge they're rational human beings with different points of view.

In my case I meant it as a metaphor for a large group of people rallying to express extreme overreaction to something.

 

[The Deadpool]

Getting a bunch of people to shout someone off the podium because you don't like what they're saying isn't censorship?

Correct. You have understood the central point of the video. Pat yourself on the back.

No-one is saying it's a good thing to do, merely that it is not censorship.

It IS censorship. It's just legal.

And, for the record, it SHOULD be legal. But it should also be frowned upon.

 

[UberPubert]

In my case I meant it as a metaphor for a large group of people rallying to express extreme overreaction to something.

My point is if you're going to use "torches and pitchforks" to mean an "angry, violent, mob" which in all reality is probably just going to be people arguing over the internet in the context of this forum, doesn't that seem a little extreme?

As in, in the sense that casually using censorship to refer to people not being given the right to a platform to speak on is extreme?

 

[faeshadow]

What it's called doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

All you're doing is engaging in BS semantics arguments. "But it's not censorship!" Who cares? It's still wrong and people should stop doing it.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

In my case I meant it as a metaphor for a large group of people rallying to express extreme overreaction to something.

My point is if you're going to use "torches and pitchforks" to mean an "angry, violent, mob" which in all reality is probably just going to be people arguing over the internet in the context of this forum, doesn't that seem a little extreme?

As in, in the sense that casually using censorship to refer to people not being given the right to a platform to speak on is extreme?

If you have a better verbal shorthand for "angry violent irrational mob" I'd love to hear it. In my original statement I was implying that the word "censorship" tends to rally the angry violent mobs. Well on the internet you can't really get violent, so angry mobs anyway.

 

[templar1138a]

I could see where you were going with the Dixie Chicks thing from the outset, and I agree. After all, for a couple years now I've been signing petitions urging advertisers to withdraw their funds from that ass-wipe, Rush Limbaugh. It'd be hypocritical for me to refer to what happened to the Dixie Chicks as censorship.

 

[Flatfrog]

Really enjoyed the video.

While it may not be censorship, what happened to the Dixie Chicks was really fucking wrong. I guess what I'm saying is, while I agree that it isn't censorship, using power in that way to silence a group whose opinions you disagree with is really fucking wrong.

Trying to silence any group whose opinions you do not agree with is really fucking wrong.

If you're right, then debate. If you aren't, then change your views. No where does silence have to come into play.

I don't know. I tend to be of the opinion that this falls under the classification of a boycott, and I don't think that's wrong. I think it's perfectly reasonable to decide that you don't want to support someone whose opinions you disagree with ethically or politically, and to try to persuade others to do so too.

I used this example when the Orson Scott Card furore happened: suppose I discovered a local cafe was owned by a neo-Nazi. I'd probably decide, even if I really liked their croissants, to stop eating there, and I'd probably want to share that information with others and persuade them not to shop there either. I don't think that is wrong.

A lot of people were offended by the Dixie Chicks' political stance and didn't like the idea of supporting them. They felt that listening to them was tacitly supporting their views. While I think that's a shame (and I was entirely opposed to the Iraq war myself so I was very much on their side) I think people have the right to spend their money how they like, and to exercise their power as consumers to persuade media outlets to do the same. I trust the general trend of popular opinion to even out the extremes on both sides of this. For every person who tried to silence the Chicks, there was someone else who wanted to support them - in the end it probably did more to strengthen their profile than anything else (I hadn't heard of them before they got in trouble)

 

[UberPubert]

If you have a better verbal shorthand for "angry violent irrational mob" I'd love to hear it. In my original statement I was implying that the word "censorship" tends to rally the angry violent mobs. Well on the internet you can't really get violent, so angry mobs anyway.

Do you have a better shorthand for people not being given a chance to speak or silenced on social platforms than "censorship"?

I just think if you're going to criticize the way people use language for not being the textbook definition, the least you could do is not use phrases that attribute armament and intent to violence to groups of people you think are overreacting to something over the internet.

 

[K12]

I basically agree that Censorship is a legal concept and not a social one however this argument does effectively mean that websites, newspapers, TV channels and any private media group will never ever be guilty of censorship when they exclude someone.

This sounds a little bit like an attempt to define an issue out of existence (for the record I don't think Bob is doing this, I just think that people will use/interpret it this way).

The issue is about exclusion or silencing opposition by intimidation or drowning them out. Whether or not it's censorship isn't really the point, it's whether it's justified.

The difference between legal Censorship and this latter kind of "Censorship" is really important to remember but the latter is still worth talking about.

Having said all that, I really like this video as a great take-down of the "you're Censoring me, therefore you are in the wrong" argument which relies on a false equivalence. The legal form of Censorship is (probably) always wrong but getting banned from a site for mouthing off about Quinn/ Sarkeesian/whoever-we've-moved-on-to-now isn't this.

The second form of Censorship can be right or wrong depending on the individual circumstances and you don't get any points by just crying "Censorship".

The ending part about there being no "one true solution" to the issue of free speech is spot on. It's something that Bob has said a couple of times and so few people seem to get. You don't ever "win" issues like these once and for all. You're weeding a garden not paving over it.

 

[RoonMian]

If this is in relation to calls for elements in games to be banned being called censorship well yes they already to do that in China, Germany and Australia frequently and it's textbook censorship.

No, Germany does not censor. Germany just has laws for youth protection and against incitement of popular hatred. One poses regulations, the other is a criminal offense. Both are not censorship.

Taken from the wiki

"Violence in video games is a controversial subject in Germany, and German localisations of violent games are often heavily cut by the publishers to permit a public release. Usually this entails a simple removal or reduction of depictions of blood and gore, but sometimes extends to cuts in the content or plot of the game, as was the case in games such as Counter-Strike and Grand Theft Auto."

Its voluntary censorship but its still censorship.

That is not true, the wiki is false in that instance. If publishers wouldn't cut the content the game could still be released in Germany no problem. They just wouldn't be able to advertise to minors and since minors are everywhere that would really hamper the marketing.

The only games that were outright banned in Germany were either games that do the incitement of popular hatred thing (though that is problematic because just having a swastika in the game used to trigger this by default but kinda understandable for people who don't think Call of Duty or Wolfenstein can discuss WW2 history in a meaningful or educational way with mecha jetpack Hitler etc.) or the uncut versions of games that actually already have a different version for the German market to prevent confusion.

It's stupid that Germany does its own special thing instead of just joining the PEGI system, yes. But it's still better than the ESRB just paying lip service to youth protection by not actually enforcing the ratings.

 

[daxterx2005]

I hate the people that say terrible awful things to people and then just go "heh, freedom of speech"

 

[OtherSideofSky]

That last bit is hilarious coming from a man with a long history of explicitly and specifically extending his criticisms of things he dislikes to criticisms of the people who enjoy and support them, either in the form of direct verbal attacks or insulting caricatures.

 

[Revolutionary]

So, while I enjoyed this video and agreed with 99% of it, I do have one nitpick. You specifically mentioned Sarkeesian (Sort of), and while I agree that most of what she and her fans do is not censorship, leading campaigns of false flagging by abusing digital copyright systems in order to remove YouTube videos or twitter accounts they don't like removed definitely crosses a line. I know it's not the exact kind of of government instituted Censorship talked about in this video, but it is a very direct, underhand way of dealing with criticism that those people didn't agree with which I feel crosses into censorship.

The difference between the Dixie Chicks thing and the Sarkeesian thing is that people used their respective soapboxes to try and and defame the Dixie Chicks in the court of public opinion, whereas in the Sarkessian case, her fans had already tried that, it didn't work, and so overzealous fans resorted to false DMCA claims. To me that is then censorship. I probably wouldn't even bring it up at all except this whole thing seems to be a really big deal right now.

Just my two cents.