Censorship. Thoughts?
What are you scared of? Don't try to silence me. If you are intelligent enough, you win the debate.
shareI once lost at tic-tac-toe to a chicken at a state carnival.
I'm scared of the rematch.
MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Censorship. Thoughts?
Oh, shush.
Men are talking.
I oppose any and all censorship. Anyone who tries to censor anyone's speech does not belong in civil society.
shareWhat about hurling obscenities or posting porn?
shareYes, we should have all that. However, it's possible to balance moderation and free speech on forums by applying context-specific rules. For example, in a science forum where we discuss peer-reviewed papers, spamming the N-word would be kind of inappropriate. It's a violation of decorum. On the other hand, if we're in the Politics thread where people engage in heated debates, anything goes, with the exception of porn, which is usually considered out of scope. However, we can always create specific threads or forums to accommodate different types of content, such as a dedicated thread for discussing porn.
shareI used to be a total free speech advocate, anything goes. I've reevaluated my position.
I was on a politics forum and one poster, instead of debating the issues, screamed that I was a faggot. And then he insisted without an ounce of proof, that I had said things years ago I had never said. It was basically "libel", and I'll put libel in quotes because we were both anonymous. But it was "libel". I don't have time for that nonsense and neither does anyone else.
Or what about a black poster discussing say reparations for slavery, and he's being called the 'n' word?
These antics bring nothing to the debate. I support censorship in those situations.
Libel is not protected speech. I don't know how it works when you are completely anonymous, but even if you operate under a pseudonym it is still libel. For example I write under the moniker ɨռզʊɨʀɨռɢ ʍɨռɖ. It is obviously not my real name, but I write under it on Substack, on YouTube, Twitter, and here. My reputation is important to me. If someone says something about me that isn't true and ruins the reputation of ɨռզʊɨʀɨռɢ ʍɨռɖ, then it is still libel. I could probably sue. It would be hard to win of course, not because I'm writing under a pseudonym, but because libel cases are generally hard to prove. The bar is set really high in order to maximize free speech. Which is a good thing.
As for being called racial and homophobic slurs, there is nothing wrong with that. If it offends people it's their problem. Anyone has the right to hate people and express their hate using offensive language. Like I said, you could set standards for individual threads so people stay on topic and conform to a certain decorum within the context of the thread. If they are causing a nuisance by spamming nonsense that is taking away from the conversation, then you can block them or even ban them from the forum for not following the etiquette of a particular thread. But there should be threads where they can express themselves. Where you have free discussion, where anything goes (with the exception of libel, slander, defamation, direct threats of violence which are all illegal and not protected speech). However, even for those, the bar should be really high. For example, with "direct threats of violence" I don't mean something like "Shut up or I'll fuck you up". That is not a real threat. A real threat would be something like "I know where you live and I'm coming for you". The context also matters. For example if I say it as a joke when we're playing around, it's fine, but if it is a serious threat, only then would it be illegal.
Yes, I agree, our online personas become important to us. So even if our anonymous posting name is libeled, it creates a problem. So censorship may be justified. Otherwise, if you argue to set the record straight, you're feeding the troll and just helping it spread rumors. Yeah, ban his ass, censor him.
And I don't give a rat's ass if some moron calls me a faggot. I wouldn't censor the word. But I have no problem if a homophobe or a racist is banned for name calling. I would be quite ready to listen to the views of someone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, or even that Hitler was right justified to kill Jews and homosexuals. As long as he's prepared for a reasoned debate. But just calling me a fag or a kike is not debate.
¿Por qué no los dos?
You could have both a reasoned and thoughtful debate about homosexuality while still hurling homophobic slurs. For example, I use this style all the time when I'm dealing with a waterhead. I will make a strong reasoned argument written in eloquent and formal language but that is infused with vulgar, racist, homophobic, sexist, and acerbic jabs. I love the juxtaposition of the two. It's my style.
With respect to the banning, like I said, banning should be a last resort, used sparingly. Also the rules for speech should be as lenient as possible. Having said that, individual threads have their own etiquette and if you constantly violate that etiquette you will be removed for not following the rules. These rules would not even necessarily have anything to do with offensive speech. It could simply be that you are in a scientific forum but you are constantly talking about movies and TV shows, and derailing the conversation. If you do this enough times and continue to comeback to the thread, even though you were asked to leave, people from the thread could petition for you to be removed from the site so you can no longer post at all.
If you're gay and some asshole is screaming "faggot" and "pedo" in your face instead of rationally giving you his reasons to oppose homosexuality and bisexuality, yeah, censor his ass, ban him. This stuff isn't rocket science.
shareI'm not prone to censor anyone, but I'm also not of the belief all censorship is wrong or related to fear. Some things aren't even put forward to be debated, sometimes debate is just a front to spread misinformation.
shareI don't beleive in censorship for adults, but children should be protected from mature subjects until they are old enough to process them. By the time someone is about 16 I think they are ready to view most material.