The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

Look I'm sorry if I offended you. I simply meant that the use of certain buzzwords tends to rally the extreme reactionaries.

 

[Seldon2639]

What I find interesting is that if his point is that the only real censorship is government-created (i.e. any social approbation, even inappropriate social approbation, is not censorship) would mean that while Anita Sarkeesian is not engaged in censorship or attempted censorship, neither are even the worst of her critics when they engage in poor behavior.

And his same defense of the marketplace of ideas, that simply losing a public debate or having a games developer do something you don't like, not being untoward or censorship would also cut against much of the SJW rhetoric that he supports under a number of other circumstances. If it's a-okay for Sarkeesian et al to "win" and get games developers to make less "problematic" games, it's also a-okay for gamers to get Intel to pull ads.

Either the end-all and be-all is who wins, or there's something to be said for ensuring that even minority voices and views are heard. It cannot be both.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

More like a word we all agree to misuse... until somebody is trying to "win" an argument and trots out the technically accurate definition.

Such as, disabling comments would fit the basic definition of the word... but then so does boycotts and the targeting of advertisers. The later two having a far more chilling effect on people's ability to voice their opinion, because they will actively be punished for doing so... whereas turning off comments just means you have to go complain somewhere else.

I'm not a big fan of going after the money, because your opponents will then have absolutely zero reluctance to go after *your* money and my only response will be to mumble "dumbass" to myself when people complain about the retaliation... but they're still perfectly legal and valid tactics. But you're deliberately hitting below the belt, so you won't get any sympathy from me when you get hit in dick, too.

But capital C Censorship is what we really mean, about someone just pull the rug completely out from under you.

 

[klaynexas3]

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"?

However, there are still forms of censorship that happen outside of government issued censorship. The DDOS attacks against certain people, the copyright claims pulling videos down from youtube, or calling in threats of violence to prevent speakers from speaking. These are going into someone else's house and preventing them from using their own platform to speak on.

That pretty much falls under what I said only a paragraph later. It's using bribery to silence someone, and so censorship.

Now if it was the case that maybe a news outlet themselves didn't want to report on MLK, as in they weren't being bribed or anything, the owner just didn't want to report it, there would be nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't say it's right, but it's not silencing anyone. The news outlet simply isn't conveying messages that they don't want to convey, because the moment that they are deciding what to report, it is now their mouth they are speaking with, and so they get to decide what to say. It becomes wrong when someone is telling them what or what not to say.

 

[Matthewmagic]

While I do not disagree with you fundamentally I am going to tell you that you are wrong.

Free speech is the first amendment.

Before that comes the constitution proper and Article 1. Section 1. simply says: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Now bob you are a pretty savvy guy so I think even through the internet you will detect the sarcasm behind "And you know how much we love congress."

;D.

Still great episode I've been waiting for a prominent figure to give the nerd community a good talking to for a while now.

 

[CaitSeith]

inb4, just like last week, people still claim that Anita is the Destroyer of Vidyagames, using their super duper secret mind-reading abilities as proof of her intentions.

Anyways, this reminds me a lot of this Critical Miss strip.

Spoiler

In my experience, lot of the time when people aren't giving you a platform to speak, its just because most people never use it for something worth all the inevitible vile that follows. You're not owed a platform, and even if you've done nothing wrong, its not given to you, or is taken away from you, because the owner doesn't think its worth bile.

How could I have never read that strip!? This is genius!

 

[Flunk]

Your argument that government censorship is the only type of censorship is insane. That comes very close to being what I'd call a "idiot's definition" as in, what many people inaccurately believe a term to mean without understanding it completely.

 

[Signa]

Ugh, I disagreed with about 60% of that. I think it might be time to stop watching Bob for me.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I'd argue that censorship is exactly what happened, although Bob and I live in different political bubbles, so it's understandable why he'd think the way he does.

It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

1. I'm a communist, so I am mad at capitalism.
2. Yes, monopolies are bad.
3. MSNBC is actually pretty right wing, Fox is just so far right that you don't see 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.

I can only comment that I recall this because the last time I was there it was still a pain to get uncensored games. I wanna say it was Left4Dead I had to get VPN to get the US/RUS version activated on steam with the blood other weird shit they cut out. This was quite a few years ago though. It was also a pain in the butt in Belgium to get my CS:S activated and downloaded but I don't remember what the restrictions were there.

This from the wiki for the sequel

German ban[edit]
In order to achieve the highest possible rating given by Germany's Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle (Freigegeben ab 18 Jahren gemäß § 14 JuSchG, meaning "Restricted for those below the age of 18"), Valve had to heavily censor the game's violent content similar to the Australian version. However, the international (and thus uncensored) version was indexed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons on December 1, 2009 in order to prevent sellers from advertising or selling it to minors. On February 15, 2010, the Amtsgericht Tiergarten confiscated all European PC versions for violation of § 131 StGB (representation of violence), meaning they may not be sold; however, it is still legal to import (with the risk that the game is confiscated by customs) and own the game. The court said that the game trivializes violence due to its high killing rate and explicit graphical representation of mutilation. They also sensed a strong cynical attitude behind the game's concept.[151] To make up for the censorship, German players receive exclusive weapons ported from Counter-Strike: Source, which include the Heckler & Koch MP5, Accuracy International AWM, SIG 552, Steyr Scout and a combat knife.[citation needed]

Its confusing but the impression I'm getting is you have to follow their censorship policy just to get indexed or whatever it is, so even though that only applies to minors there isn't a way to sell an uncensored version at all legally.

Indexed means what I said: That you cannot advertise it to minors. Steam just cannot sell anything with an over 18 label on principle because Steam refuses to implement an age verification system. And since you cannot get Left 4 Dead anywhere else BUT Steam and Steam isn't allowed to sell 18+ games because it is wide open to minors You cannot get the 18+ version of Left 4 Dead. That's on Steam though, it's just a unfortunate combination. It's still not censorship though, that is still youth protection. Valve could make sure that someone buying the 18+ version of Left 4 Dead is actually 18+ and everything would be peachy.

 

[UberPubert]

Look I'm sorry if I offended you. I simply meant that the use of certain buzzwords tends to rally the extreme reactionaries.

I'm not offended or mad, I just think if we're going to have a discussion on the misuse of terms and criticize people for it then everyone should be more careful about how they word things; doing anything else seems a little hypocritical.

 

[Sam Squires]

Another Great Big Picture, Thanks Moviebob! You continue to be my favorite contributor to The Escapist and videos like this are precisely why.

 

[jthwilliams]

I am going to attack this from a different angle and go after the somewhat understated underlying assumption that censorship is ethically, morally or legally wrong.

Legally, the U.S. government is forbidden from taking actions of censorship. However even that has exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Ethically, if I disagree with you, I am under no ethical obligation to spend my time, effort, or other resources spreading your message. If the power disparity between us is great enough however it can still censorship.

Morally, well this is a more tricky one because I have never found a moral that wasn't harder to nail down than water flowing over a Teflon pane in zero g. As far as I can see saying something is moral is no more then saying that it is something you personally and/or society (by any definition of society) agrees with. Pick any 100 people at random and you'll have a fairly unique set of "morals". Ethics at least has the obligation of defining central principles and justifying the generalizations of right and wrong by rational means. but at least in America, I believe the prevailing sense of right and wrong at the moment doesn't require me to make statements against my own "values" or spend money, time or other resources making sure they get spread.

So it seems to me the problem with is argument is that it is based on an assumption that is both unproved and has considerable evidence against it.

Censorship and free speech are tools. They can both be used in ethical, legal and "moral" ways and used in unethical, illegal, and immoral ways. They are both dangerous and helpful. As an example the people who send death treats to people they disagree with on the internet are exercising free speech all be it in a way that is easy to argue is unethical, illegal, and immoral. If it was in my power to do so, I would stop them and I would be committing censorship though I would be doing so in a way that doesn't violate my ethics, could be considered moral could even be done legally if I was careful.

I think what you'll find however is that at least in America the general opinion has been at various times that the tool of censorship is far more easy to abuse. If someone uses free speech, I can always ignore them or attempt to convince them of my point. If someone uses censorship they can repress an idea from ever being considered and halt progress. We tend to think of censorship as more repressive and dangerous and are willing to put up with misused free speech unless or until the evidence that this particular exact piece of free speech is more harmful than expanding the use of censorship.

This is the same with how our laws generally require guilt without doubt as we find it more harmful to accidentally put a innocent person to punishment than let a guilty person off.

Nonetheless, censorship is an act of power. If I have the power to stop and or severely limit the spread of your thought, idea or expression and I exercise that power, I am censoring you. I'm sorry that is just what the word means. I just might not be "wrong" for doing it.

my 2 cents. Now get back to fighting over who censored who and is therefore both wrong in deed and therefore idea.

EDIT: Actually when i think about it the people who use death treats are exercising free speech in an attempt to censor which is a bit ironic.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Okay so its not censorship...its bullying?

 

[Urh]

...but it shouldn't define you to the point where criticism of a thing you like is taken as criticism of you.

So what would Bob have to say to people who instantly consider any criticism of their opinions or arguments or reasoning (no matter how valid) to be a personal attack, and instantly call upon people to shout said critics down with personal slurs? I disagree with Bob's idea of people growing thicker skins not being a solution. It would certainly be a step in the right direction.

The increased tendency for people to circlejerk one another in internet communities has made them far less open to new or opposing ideas that challenge theirs, making discourse that much more difficult. Instead of arguments being a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition, they've become little more than contradiction. Discussion between people with opposing viewpoints is ultimately futile when just one person isn't open to the possibility that they might be wrong. If there's one thing that I think everybody needs to know is that the right to one's opinion comes with the responsibility of intellectual integrity - i.e. you're entitled to your opinions, but it is up to you to defend them when they are under scrutiny, and you have to own up to your mistakes.

 

[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"?

However, there are still forms of censorship that happen outside of government issued censorship. The DDOS attacks against certain people, the copyright claims pulling videos down from youtube, or calling in threats of violence to prevent speakers from speaking. These are going into someone else's house and preventing them from using their own platform to speak on.

That pretty much falls under what I said only a paragraph later. It's using bribery to silence someone, and so censorship.

Now if it was the case that maybe a news outlet themselves didn't want to report on MLK, as in they weren't being bribed or anything, the owner just didn't want to report it, there would be nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't say it's right, but it's not silencing anyone. The news outlet simply isn't conveying messages that they don't want to convey, because the moment that they are deciding what to report, it is now their mouth they are speaking with, and so they get to decide what to say. It becomes wrong when someone is telling them what or what not to say.

Right. But let's say I am ungodly rich and I don't want the message to go out, so I buy every major publication and tell them not to report it.

It's legal. But is it honest? Is it just? Is it RIGHT?

I mean, I have the right to do it. And I SHOULD have the right to do it. But should I not be condemned for exercising said right?

The laws cannot (or I should say "should not") cover every immoral act. It doesn't make the action any less immoral.

 

[jthwilliams]

Right. But let's say I am ungodly rich and I don't want the message to go out, so I buy every major publication and tell them not to report it.

It's legal. But is it honest? Is it just? Is it RIGHT?

I mean, I have the right to do it. And I SHOULD have the right to do it. But should I not be condemned for exercising said right?

The laws cannot (or I should say "should not") cover every immoral act. It doesn't make the action any less immoral.

Should you have a right to do it? Under many accepted ethical models, I don't think you should have that ability. Legally, you don't at least not in America. At least that is how I understand our laws around monopoly, but even if those laws did not exist, I would question if this is an action that you "should" have the right to do.

 

[klaynexas3]

Right. But let's say I am ungodly rich and I don't want the message to go out, so I buy every major publication and tell them not to report it.

It's legal. But is it honest? Is it just? Is it RIGHT?

I mean, I have the right to do it. And I SHOULD have the right to do it. But should I not be condemned for exercising said right?

The laws cannot (or I should say "should not") cover every immoral act. It doesn't make the action any less immoral.

Did I not just state that would be censorship? What do you want from me, a poem?

 

[The Deadpool]

Right. But let's say I am ungodly rich and I don't want the message to go out, so I buy every major publication and tell them not to report it.

It's legal. But is it honest? Is it just? Is it RIGHT?

I mean, I have the right to do it. And I SHOULD have the right to do it. But should I not be condemned for exercising said right?

The laws cannot (or I should say "should not") cover every immoral act. It doesn't make the action any less immoral.

Should you have a right to do it? Under many accepted ethical models, I don't think you should have that ability. Legally, you don't at least not in America. At least that is how I understand our laws around monopoly, but even if those laws did not exist, I would question if this is an action that you "should" have the right to do.

The method of influence isn't the point, it's just the idea. The same could happen if the owners of every major publication were just friends who agreed on a subject and decided to silence opposition to said subject.

Legal, but dishonest.

Did I not just state that would be censorship? What do you want from me, a poem?

Would it kill you to write me one? Geez!

I'm just pointing out, even without bribery, there are other (legal) ways to influence people that could be dishonest or even harmful.

It's not ALWAYS dishonest or harmful. But it could be.

 

[jthwilliams]

Did I not just state that would be censorship? What do you want from me, a poem?

Would it kill you to write me one? Geez!

Would you settle for a sort of Haiku?

- If Censorship is
- Power used to hurt others
- is power evil?