The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

[The Deadpool]

Censorship is government telling you want you have to say

No. Censorship is anyone or anything preventing someone from saying what they want.

Things like legal right and morality only come into play with context, as is the case with pretty much every verb. Example:

Situation 1: You and I are walking down the street, we cross paths, I blow your head off with a Magnum .44.

Situation 2: You and I are walking down the street and I ruin your suit with a Super Soaker loaded with ketchup.

Situation 3: You and I are walking down the beach and I spray you with a Super Soaker loaded with cold water.

In Situation 1 I am abhorent. My act is illegal and immoral and I should be punished by the full extent of the law. Many people would even agree that punishment beyond what the law provides would be acceptable.

In Situation 2, I am a jerk. Legally I'm pretty good (you might convince Judge Judy that I owe you a dry cleaning bill... Maybe) but depending on where you are going the harm could be minimal (damaged favorite suit) or great (cost job interview, leading to all sorts of potential harm to you).

In Situation 3, I'm just being playful and fun. You feign anger but just two friends hanging out.

In all 3 situations, the sentence "I shot you" is correct. The verb "to shoot" has no bearing on legality or morality. You need CONTEXT for that. The verb "to censor" works the same way.

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't, because you are violating the freedom of the other guests. So it isn't freedom of speech.

Yelling "Fire" IS free speech. It isn't legally sanctioned because its potential to causing bodily harm to other people is deemed too great.

The law limits our free speech in order to keep us unharmed as best as possible.

So censorship isn't always a bad thing, which means that "that's censorship" isn' an argument against someones behavior, right?

Indeed it is not. To censor is not necessarily "evil." And that could have been the the subject matter of this video, instead of trying to change the meaning of words...

 

[chikusho]

If you meant that all humans are basically the same and the differences between populations are negligible then you're just being silly. Genetic differences between very distant populations is massive, and if humans weren't considered special snowflakes we would have been classified into different subspecies ages ago.

Actually, the genetic differences between you and someone from half way around the world can be lesser than between you and someone from your neighborhood sitting next to you on the bus. That is, differences are larger between individuals than populations. The genetic differences in humans are so miniscule and unreliable that it can't be divided into either races or subspecies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342553

 

[Jake Martinez]

I think Bob and people who hold his opinions should revisit a favorite book of mine by Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451. People often think this book is about government censorship, but they're wrong. This quote from a famous book review describes the subject better than I can:

Bradbury imagined a democratic society whose diverse population turns against books: Whites reject Uncle Tom's Cabin and blacks disapprove of Little Black Sambo. He imagined not just political correctness, but a society so diverse that all groups were "minorities." He wrote that at first they condensed the books, stripping out more and more offending passages until ultimately all that remained were footnotes, which hardly anyone read. Only after people stopped reading did the state employ firemen to burn books.

I don't see how anyone can read that above quotation and not see how that is perfectly applicable to what is going on around us today. The danger is, when as a society we become so intolerant of offensive speech that we cannot allow it to exist, eventually all speech will become worthless except by the tyranny of the majority.

Bob's right in a sense, it's not censorship in the archaic legal sense. It's intellectual and cultural murder.

 

[ryukage_sama]

But that's not demonstrable evidence, that's anecdotal evidence... just because you don't feel accused doesn't mean others don't

I wasn't claiming that people don't "feel" accused. I'm challenging your claim that accusations stifle, suppress or effectively discourage discussion. The demonstrable evidence is that this thread alone is 6 pages of people discussing it. If anything, things are discussed more thoroughly and fervently when one party is acting defensively.

The distinction between an explicit accusation and a perceived one is a separate issue.

 

[Don Incognito]

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong.

It is NOT breaching their free speech. They have still have that right.

But they do NOT have the right to do so on my property.

 

[The Deadpool]

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong.

It is NOT breaching their free speech. They have still have that right.

But they do NOT have the right to do so on my property.

Right is a matter of legality.

Free speech can be infringed upon, even legally, with the right reason ("Fire!" in a crowded theater for a typical example). It is STILL an infringement on free speech.

 

[NiPah]

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong.

It is NOT breaching their free speech. They have still have that right.

But they do NOT have the right to do so on my property.

You're taking away their free speech on your property then.

 

[Don Incognito]

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong.

It is NOT breaching their free speech. They have still have that right.

But they do NOT have the right to do so on my property.

You're taking away their free speech on your property then.

That is not what "free speech" means.

 

[Stephen St.]

Yelling "Fire" IS free speech. It isn't legally sanctioned because its potential to causing bodily harm to other people is deemed too great.

The law limits our free speech in order to keep us unharmed as best as possible.

Free speech is a concept, based on the broader concept of freedom. If something isn't "protected speech", to use American parlance, then it isn't free speech at all. You don't have the freedom to insult others (you have the ability, but that is merely a fact and not a freedom), so prohibitions on insulting others don't limit your freedom, as something that doesn't exist can't be limited. Just like there is no general freedom to kill people which is then "limited" by the law requiring you to not kill people.

Indeed it is not. To censor is not necessarily "evil." And that could have been the the subject matter of this video, instead of trying to change the meaning of words...

But the broader point still holds. Saying you are being treated unjustly because you have been censored doesn't work unless you can show why what happened to you is wrong, specifically.

 

[NiPah]

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong.

It is NOT breaching their free speech. They have still have that right.

But they do NOT have the right to do so on my property.

You're taking away their free speech on your property then.

That is not what "free speech" means.

You're getting into legal definitions which vary by country, I'm just breaking down the word: freedom (you are able/not blocked from) and speech (verbal communication).
You can block what people say, like you said it's your yard, but you are blocking people's speech.
This isn't even a bad thing, I just get pissed when someone blocks another person from talking then says "it's not blocking free speech, I'm not a government!"
Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Mik Sunrider]

No, Deadpool; you are incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with context. When you are on someone's private property; their home, business or website; you have a formal or informal agreement with said owner (or if you are the owner with your guest) about a code of conduct that you will follow when on said private property. If you fail or someone else have fail to follow the code of conduct, they have every right to ask you to leave. You can stand outside their property and scream at the top of your lungs about how unfair they are but that is all that is going to happen to you. Because they can not enforce their views on you outside of their private property.
The government can, will and has many times in the past, all over the world jail, fine or executed people for saying, acting or supporting activities and speeches that they , the government, do not approve of. They can and will hunt down those they don't like.
And that is the difference. Between private citizens you are annoyance. With the government you are the latest member of the Stalin Hotel in beautiful Siberia.

 

[Don Incognito]

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong.

It is NOT breaching their free speech. They have still have that right.

But they do NOT have the right to do so on my property.

You're taking away their free speech on your property then.

That is not what "free speech" means.

You're getting into legal definitions which vary by country, I'm just breaking down the word: freedom (you are able/not blocked from) and speech (verbal communication).
You can block what people say, like you said it's your yard, but you are blocking people's speech.
This isn't even a bad thing, I just get pissed when someone blocks another person from talking then says "it's not blocking free speech, I'm not a government!"
Just something to keep in mind.

Phrases do not necessarily mean what their individual words mean together.

"free speech" does NOT mean "free" + "speech"

 

[Stephen St.]

You're getting into legal definitions which vary by country, I'm just breaking down the word: freedom (you are able/not blocked from) and speech (verbal communication).
You can block what people say, like you said it's your yard, but you are blocking people's speech.
This isn't even a bad thing, I just get pissed when someone blocks another person from talking then says "it's not blocking free speech, I'm not a government!"
Just something to keep in mind.

That definition of "freedom" only holds if we talk about what people physically are able though. If, however, we are talking about "limiting one's right to free speech", then "freedom" in understood as a "right" not an ability, as an ability is something you either have or haven't, not something that can be "limited". Whether or not you are able to speak or blocked from speaking is an empirical question for the natural sciences, but when we talk about "rights", we are talking about whether or not something is in accordance with a codex, be it an actually code of law, some sort of natural or intrinsic law, or a code of ethics (essentially, whether or not it's right to do it). In that context, freedom doesn't mean ability, it means being allowed to do something.

 

[faeshadow]

Telling people they can't post things that were hateful, morally objectionable, racist, or threatening got me a lot of flack about me 'censoring' them and 'violating' their free speech.

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal. And likely not immoral either.

The problem is that America worships free speech as a concept, but hates it as a fact...

Well, you're half right. It was censorship, but it wasn't violating "free speech", since "free speech" is a reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution, which admin censorship doesn't apply to.

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

It is censorship. It just happens to be justified censorship that they're within their rights to do.

 

[The Deadpool]

Free speech is a concept, based on the broader concept of freedom. If something isn't "protected speech", to use American parlance, then it isn't free speech at all.

It IS free speech. It simply isn't protected by law, hence its name.

You are still confusing the concept of free speech (saying what you want, when you want). This concept is infringed upon for legal and moral reasons (and sometimes illegal and immoral reasons).

By definition, anything that prevents someone from saying what they want when they want is an infringement on their free speech.

The key part is that infringing on free speech isn't always illegal and/or wrong,

You don't have the freedom to insult others

Actually, you do. Depending on context, that right can be legal and/or moral.

The problem is that "insult" is a subjective term. Example: some people are insulted at the idea of same sex marriage, but I still have the right (some places legal, some places moral) to marry someone the same sex as mine.

But the broader point still holds. Saying you are being treated unjustly because you have been censored doesn't work unless you can show why what happened to you is wrong, specifically.

The problem with the video is the implication that there is the government sanctioned, "bad" censorship. And the privately done, "good" censorship.

The truth is, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it), not that simple. Things rarely are.

No, Deadpool; you are incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with context.

If "It" means "Censorship" then that IS my argument.

If "It" means "legality and morality" then it is ALL about context.

When you are on someone's private property; their home, business or website; you have a formal or informal agreement with said owner (or if you are the owner with your guest) about a code of conduct that you will follow when on said private property. If you fail or someone else have fail to follow the code of conduct, they have every right to ask you to leave.

First, I just want to chuckle at the statement that context has nothing to do with it followed by a sentence establishing the context. *chuckle*

Okay, back to the conversation.

Legally, you are indeed allowed to kick me out of your house. Morally? It depends on WHAT I say, doesn't it?

Sure, if I walk into your house and scream "Death to all filthy [racial slur]!", then most people would argue that you are morally justified in kicking me out.

IF, during dinner, you are verbally abusing your elderly mother, and I try to calm you down and you kick me out for it, then a lot of people (and I hope most) would find you are NOT justified and you should have listened to me instead.

Both situations are LEGAL. But they are not both moral.

You can stand outside their property and scream at the top of your lungs about how unfair they are but that is all that is going to happen to you. Because they can not enforce their views on you outside of their private property.

That is, again, dependent on context.

If I'm standing outside your house preaching my religion, and you come outside and punch me in the mouth until I shut up, you are legally and morally incorrect.

BUT, if I'm standing next to a burning cross in front of your house, screaming "Death to all filthy [racial slur]!" and you come outside and punch me in the mouth until I shut up, you may be legally incorrect, but I think most people would find you morally justified.

Legality and morality are about context. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Stephen St.]

It IS free speech. It simply isn't protected by law, hence its name.

You are still confusing the concept of free speech (saying what you want, when you want). This concept is infringed upon for legal and moral reasons (and sometimes illegal and immoral reasons).

By definition, anything that prevents someone from saying what they want when they want is an infringement on their free speech.

Then define what "freedom" means in freedom of speech. Because if all speech is free speech, then the qualifier "free" is empty - i.e. the word "freedom" has no actual content.

Actually, you do. Depending on context, that right can be legal and/or moral.

Describe to me a case where insulting someone is a moral thing to do.

´
The problem is that "insult" is a subjective term. Example: some people are insulted at the idea of same sex marriage, but I still have the right (some places legal, some places moral) to marry someone the same sex as mine.[/quote]

No, "insult" isn't subjective, wrong usage of the word notwithstanding. When I use the word insult I refer to the legal definition of the term, which I would paraphrase as: An insult is a statement that diminishes the worth of the person it's directed at. Insulting someone means trying to diminish someone's worth as a person.

Other things may be called insults by other people, i.e. some people might find gay marriage an insult, but that is not the sense in which I used insult, and such "insults" would be in accordance with free speech.

The problem with the video is the implication that there is the government sanctioned, "bad" censorship. And the privately done, "good" censorship.

The truth is, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it), not that simple. Things rarely are.

The video nowhere states that "non-government censorship" isn't a problem. In fact it pretty much explicitly states the opposite towards the end. It's a problem, just not the same problem that government censorship is.

 

[The Deadpool]

Then define what "freedom" means in freedom of speech. Because if all speech is free speech, then the qualifier "free" is empty - i.e. the word "freedom" has no actual content.

Just because we can't point to a true anarchy in the world today, doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.

Free speech is the concept of being able to say anything, anywhere and anytime. In actuality this is rarely the case. There is a time and place for things, there is a limit on what can and can't be said even in the "proper" venue, etc etc etc. But the concept remains.

Anything that prevents you from saying what you want when and where you want it is a limit on your free speech.

I know it's difficult, but you have to divorce yourself from the idea that free speech = holiest of holy good things.

Describe to me a case where insulting someone is a moral thing to do.

Not all opinions are worthy. If someone believes the Earth is flat (for a nice, non-debate causing example) calling that person "idiotic" would be justified, no? Surely we can think of a few other positions where insults would be valid.

 

[Stephen St.]

Just because we can't point to a true anarchy in the world today, doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.

True, but then anarchy is pretty much anathema to freedom. Freedom would invalidate itself if it included the right for everyone to do whatever they wanted, because that includes taking away the freedom of others.

Free speech is the concept of being able to say anything, anywhere and anytime. In actuality this is rarely the case. There is a time and place for things, there is a limit on what can and can't be said even in the "proper" venue, etc etc etc. But the concept remains.

Anything that prevents you from saying what you want when and where you want it is a limit on your free speech.

Sure, empirically that is true. You have a factual ability to speak and that ability is factually limited by the circumstances. But that isn't a freedom - a freedom is something you are not just able to do, but specifically allowed or entitled to do according to a set of rules, which can be moral or legal. If it were otherwise, we'd just call it the ability to speak and could forget about the term "freedom" altogether.

Not all opinions are worthy. If someone believes the Earth is flat (for a nice, non-debate causing example) calling that person "idiotic" would be justified, no? Surely we can think of a few other positions where insults would be valid.

Do I get to call you an idiot if you say something I find obviously wrong? I don't think so. There is no good reason to insult people, which is why you aren't free to do so.

 

[NiPah]

Spoiler

It's not censorship either.

If a bunch of people walk into my office, stand in the lobby, and rant and rave about anything and nothing in particular, it is not censorship if I make them leave.

Kinda.

It is justified. It is righteous. It is legal.

But it is also breaching their free speech.

I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong.

It is NOT breaching their free speech. They have still have that right.

But they do NOT have the right to do so on my property.

You're taking away their free speech on your property then.

That is not what "free speech" means.

You're getting into legal definitions which vary by country, I'm just breaking down the word: freedom (you are able/not blocked from) and speech (verbal communication).
You can block what people say, like you said it's your yard, but you are blocking people's speech.
This isn't even a bad thing, I just get pissed when someone blocks another person from talking then says "it's not blocking free speech, I'm not a government!"
Just something to keep in mind.]

Phrases do not necessarily mean what their individual words mean together.

"free speech" does NOT mean "free" + "speech"

So what does free speech mean? How would you define it?

Spoiler

You're getting into legal definitions which vary by country, I'm just breaking down the word: freedom (you are able/not blocked from) and speech (verbal communication).
You can block what people say, like you said it's your yard, but you are blocking people's speech.
This isn't even a bad thing, I just get pissed when someone blocks another person from talking then says "it's not blocking free speech, I'm not a government!"
Just something to keep in mind.

That definition of "freedom" only holds if we talk about what people physically are able though. If, however, we are talking about "limiting one's right to free speech", then "freedom" in understood as a "right" not an ability, as an ability is something you either have or haven't, not something that can be "limited". Whether or not you are able to speak or blocked from speaking is an empirical question for the natural sciences, but when we talk about "rights", we are talking about whether or not something is in accordance with a codex, be it an actually code of law, some sort of natural or intrinsic law, or a code of ethics (essentially, whether or not it's right to do it). In that context, freedom doesn't mean ability, it means being allowed to do something.

I'm not sure if you're just talking from my definition, or the broader discussion, but would you then agree that someone taking away your right to do something would be taking away the freedom to do that thing?

I agree though my definition doesn't hold water, I was just trying to prove a quick point to the above conversation.

 

[Rellik San]

But that's not demonstrable evidence, that's anecdotal evidence... just because you don't feel accused doesn't mean others don't

I wasn't claiming that people don't "feel" accused. I'm challenging your claim that accusations stifle, suppress or effectively discourage discussion. The demonstrable evidence is that this thread alone is 6 pages of people discussing it. If anything, things are discussed more thoroughly and fervently when one party is acting defensively.

The distinction between an explicit accusation and a perceived one is a separate issue.

I respectfully disagree, there is discussion here, because Bob presented a discussion, he discussed his points, put forward his ideas and just asked us to be a bit more respectful in debate.

And that has sparked a respectful debate, where we've discussed other ideas and opinions and moved forward in an interesting dialogue. Because this wasn't presented as a didactic "this is the way, this is how it should be, if you disagree you are wrong!" this was presented as "this is what this means, this is it's potential effects, but it's up to the market to decide... you're the market now, so you decide."

If this was Bob saying "If you have criticism of the critics you're a bad person" which to be fair, given where his politics lay, many people were probably expecting, this would be a much shoutier, louder, forum thread where nothing was really discussed and people would be polarised and standing under banners and claiming others as their own or their opponents. Just look at other more didactic videos forum posts and you'll see it for yourself.