Censorship?

Re "Branada": To me, it depends on how "legal" the "secret mission" is. If it includes planned war crimes, then denouncing it is the right thing to do and the army brought its failure on iself.

Re part of first post: Denying to children ("parental locking") is not censorship to me. Denying to legal citizens is.

edited 12th Dec '11 12:53:59 AM by Medinoc

Okay, I thread hopped a bit/a lot.

My shower-time thoughts on censorship are like this:

Government doesn't need to waste money on censorship. I believe that self-regulation makes more sense. What I expect is that each media industry develops an informative code of what is contained within a particular piece of media (types of violence, sexual depictions, expletives etc) and then it is up to individuals to purchase or not purchase something based on that information.

For government grants, especially for the fine arts, I would sorta just spew that money in every direction. I don't think it worth the dollars wasted in managing money to only go to "moral" works. I know my government is attempting to do that and the first things it did was cut funding to a movie that had suggestive title, yet have no sexual depictions in the movie itself (they didn't even bother reviewing anything and cut funding to something that didn't hit their not-moral guidelines) and another one which simply disagreed with their political views (ie. it was a liberal movie... and liberalism is evil). So I would put no restrictions on art grants.

For making certain types of art illegal, my only criteria is this: if you have to do something illegal to produce it, then it is an illegal good. For instance, child pornography is illegal because then you have to sexually abuse children in order to produce it. Possession of illegal material is also illegal. Trading in illegal material is illegal.

I agree with breadloaf except for government grants, they should be cut in their entirety as well as classifying support of the arts as charity or tax write offs.

I have a new question for the forum: What about obviously evil work? For example, a movie that portrays the acts of Hitler as the best thing that's ever happened to the world? A pro-KKK movie?

Or just a movie with morally unacceptable viewpoints, for example racism or sexism? One that portrays [insert belief system here] in a downright false way, for example "showing" the internal organization of an atheist church sacrificing virgins to Baal? Note: That doesn't mean a work of fiction in which atheists sacrifice virgins, I mean a work that actively says that all atheists sacrifice virgins.

What about them?

~shrug~

Free speech doesn't discriminate against immoral things. They should be ignored, but...

Now, if they did something actually illegal while making this work, then yes, it should be dealt with.

Should they be censored, or even given a "worse" rating? (i.e. a shift from PG-13 to R because of "Anti-Semiticism" or something)

Nope.

No, it should just clearly state what it is on the media. The community should reject the piece of media because it is immoral to them.

Hm, I would say that basic "honest advertising" laws should still apply.

Yes, necroing, but I'd like to bring a conversation over here, as it seems to deal with this topic much more than Men's Issues:

InAnOdderWay - I get the concept of safe spaces. We use them on the internet all the time. Subreddits, subforums, topics, literally everything is a safespace when you get a group of people in a place and control what can be said there, either literally through mod rule or through social cues.

MrAHRIt depends on what type. I've seen some overreactions to college issues, and I've also seen minor things being blown out of proportion. College should be at least somewhat safe so that people can properly learn. As a result it will mean a pull and tug between students and teachers as that balance is found.

I tend to sympathize with students, if only because they are often risking crippling amounts of debt and more, so I don't feel too bad if they think they deserve a few things for the obscene amount they pay.

When does a "safe zone" become censorship? Is there, in fact, any difference? The very concept of trying to tell a group of people that they are forbidden by law or regulation to discuss a topic makes me extremely uneasy. Yes, I recognize that many of the places implementing these rules are private universities, and thus not subject to the same limitations as the government vis a vis the First Amendment. Yes, I recognize that many of these places are doing so at the behest of their students or employees.

But it seems to me that if you try to make people feel safe, it comes at the cost of removing their own ability to deal with the issue. Whether or not they want to deal with it is irrelevant. By implementing rules that stop you from discussing a topic, the people who genuinely want to find a solution now have to choose between the censure of authority (and possibly their peers), or leaving the place. It does stop people from being harassed, and I understand that most of these are designed to stop the rude, the bullies.

Have safe spaces already been implemented? How successful have they been so far?

One could argue that if someone wanted to discuss certain topics, they should leave the "safe space" and move somewhere else, since the point of a "safe space" is that someone can move into that space and not have to deal with those topics.

One could think of trigger warnings, where readers can choose whether or not to deal with certain issues.

edited 21st Feb '16 8:07:35 PM by hellomoto

I would dare to say that Safe Spaces are a form of censorship being regarded as a positive or benign from of censorship as it is intended to provide a place where certain discussions could be conducted without the interference of disruptive speech, or at least that is the theory behind them.

But in my opinion, much like trigger warnings, it is something that is being used by people who really don't needed it and are more concerned with sheltering their views from everything else or at least able to speak or hold discussions where they won't be challenged.

I really don't like the ideas behind Safe Spaces, mostly because I think they raise some red flags regarding what is acceptable and what isn't, which tends to boil down to whoever is administrating the safe space views on the subject is and what it accepts or due to an appeal to the majority restricting the space only to those who agree with the views of the majority to have a voice.

Essentially it is all the issues online forums and subreddits have, from the user base ganging up on whoever doesn't hold up to the baseline rhetoric and beliefs of the community to admins and moderators arbitrating based on their personal beliefs and feelings over the matter being leaked into the physical realm. Instead of providing a place where specific topics and be broadly discussed and different views over said topic being exposed it essentially pushes for the creation of a circle jerk where only like minded individuals are allowed in.

I think it has the same issues of Slacktivism, a feel good practice that only has an impact to people who is interested or hold similar views to begin with and fails to actually challenge different views or spread their views because they are being exposed in a place that is limited in scope, restricted towards anyone else and most importantly aimed inwards in order to protect those within it from anything they consider harmful.

edited 21st Feb '16 8:21:51 PM by AngelusNox

With safe spaces, they're an odd concept, the idea that you should have a degree of safety exists in every space (after all we don't have no law zones), but how great that safety should be and if it actually just means immunity from disagreement varies. I'm a politics student so I'm used to people getting very passionate in class, but we're all still friends afterwards. Thing is due to what I'm studying I'm used to that, people studying other things may have more difficulty separating political disagreement from personal value as a human being.

Here's the thing, the idea of a particular topic being banned can make some sense, say you have a seminar/group meeting about abuse, you'd probably like that to be a safe space for abuse victims speak without fear, so some rules make sense. However you can't also put thouse rules in place for a class on gender roles, otherwise it stops being a learning expirence.

Private property that is open to the public is often treated differently than other private property. Being privately owned doesn't allow a business to discriminate for example. Wanting freedom of speech to work the same way is not unprecedented.

Some opinions cannot be expressed everywhere. Every society censors harmful speech. The only difference is in what is considered harmful enough to warrant a censorship. Threats? Libel? Slander? Hate Speech? Lèse-majesté? Sedition?

The idea that censorship is bad?

Honestly, I've seen that bar being set so low in a few spaces I've seen people being shouted out of discussions for not supporting assistencialist policies with ad hominem attacks in discussions about state welfare and even women who are hogpiled for not supporting the gender warfare brand of feminism being spouted during a feminism discussion.

But the worse I've seen were the Pro and Anti abortion live group discussions, these usually end up being divided between those who are in favour seeking only discussions groups that are on the same line of thinking as theirs and those against seeking only the groups defending their views, with both sides shouting out differing views out of the discussion.

Extremism is bad. Extreme Free Speech is no exception.

As it is, free speech vs. censorship is often used as a distraction. There's no reason to defend a position like "I want to make rape jokes in a victims' shelter!" unless you really want to make rape jokes in a victims' shelter, and there's no reason to do that unless you're a complete asshole. But people who feel bad that their "right to be an asshole to groups I hate and want to cause emotional pain to" has been violated can claim censorship to make their indefensible positions seem justified.

Freedom of speech is being used as a deflecting tactic to allow people who've been called out for hateful diatribe to flip the narrative and claim status as victims of Orwellian dystopia.

edited 22nd Feb '16 9:39:23 AM by TobiasDrake

That argument is terrifyingly easy to twist into "all defenders of free speech are hateful assholes."

That's because context matters. Context is the middle ground between absolutes.

If Absolute Freedom of Speech is bad and Absolute Censorship is also bad, then good has to be found somewhere in the middle. That's why the justice system has trials: because even with criminal offenses, there needs to be a hearing to determine not only IF a crime has been committed, but also whether or not that crime should be punished. To take each instance on a case-by-case basis, weigh it, and determine if what happened is a fair and acceptable outcome.

You can say, "Freedom of speech must NEVER be silenced" and picture Orwellian dictators outlawing the right to speak out against the almighty king. You can say, "Some speech is unacceptable" and picture a man telling a rape victim to crawl into a hole and die for daring to seek justice. These two ideals clash because they aren't even arguing about the same point. Because they aren't about a physical example, but about worst-case scenarios and hypothetical imaginings.

Without context, it's all just empty screams into an uncaring void.

edited 22nd Feb '16 1:38:08 PM by TobiasDrake

Which things it is acceptable to say and not - and in which situations - is certainly up for discussion. But it becomes kind of difficult to discuss something if you're... well, not allowed to discuss it.

There's a time and place for discussion of what should and should not be acceptable to discuss, however, as well as how it should be discussed.

For instance, there's a world of difference between, "I don't appreciate how Mako was treated in the third season. It felt like he was made the designated bad guy for the sake of building up the romance between Korra and Asami," and "F*CK YOU, you gender-traitor f*ckfaces! I'm going to cut off your heads and fornicate with your brain stems!"

If you want to talk about whether or not a safe space has overly strict policies on speech, that's a great conversation to have in a private office. What you should absolutely not be doing is standing in the middle of the shelter going, "F*ck these insensitive stupid bitches. They deserved to be raped." One might cry censorship at being kicked out after saying something like that, but your rights end where other people's rights begin.

Even on this board, we have people who try to discuss whether or not our forum policies are too strict or need adjustment. We have subforums dedicated to improvements and the moderators have their own places where they can discuss internal affairs. But when you're sitting in Edit Banned appealing to have your rights given back, that is the worst place to go, "I think your policies are too strict and you should get your heads out of your asses and stop persecuting me."

Context isn't just subject matter. It's where, when, and how the subject matter is addressed.

Quite honestly, your comparison fell apart. Saying all women deserve to be raped is no more or less appropriate in a private office than it is in the middle of a battered women's shelter. A discussion of what appropriate speech topics should be, quite frankly should be just as appropriate in either space.

I see I'm not the only person who reads that topic as a pastime.

But yeah, in the end context matters. Take a discussion about sexual assault, gender roles and the factors that make rapists rapists, all very good topics for a gender studies class, terrible points of discussion for a victim support group.

I wouldn't agree with that, if you want to talk about what's appropriate to discuss in such a place then you do it with the place's management/leadership, not in the middle of the place in a way that picks on the people there for support.

edited 22nd Feb '16 2:32:54 PM by Silasw