Censorship -- is it always unacceptable?

[Phoenicks]

Every so often, as I sit comfortably in a country without threat of being arrested for seditious opinion, I wonder if censorship is all that bad. This community has sadly produced evidence before that words hurt. There's comfort in Beatty's words (Fahrenheit 451): "We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought".

Under Roman Law the Censor was a position of honor, tasked with 'keeping public morals'. Isn't it better to stop criminals by instilling them with virtue than punishing them retroactively? Surely there are things dangerous to public sensibilities: Al-Qaeda's terrorist plots or government secrets are regularly censored. But what about rape apologetics or "hate speech" -- would Rome have tolerated these debasements? Is there merit in censorship?

Goverment, however, does not make the only censor: censorship is everywhere and we don't notice. James Watson was denounced, ostracized, and fired for his views on race. Larry Summers was denounced and fired for suggesting that women don't enter STEM fields because they tend not to like them. Viewed one way, Malala Yousafzai was censored by Pakistanis who do not want to hear children's and women's education activists. Censorship happens outside the government and that worries me. Government is, after all, not the only thing that censors. And perhaps there are benefits to solidarity and conformity, but what about truth? As John Stuart Mill said, "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."

Even science operates on this principle: one idea, considered against the evidence, can shatter dogma. This is where I'm torn: where would we be if, say, Darwin had not published The Origins of Species? Would we be happier all believing in Creationism, believing in the same God, rid of one more laborious debate?

Now I'm rambling. What does the rest of Bulba think? I'm of two minds and don't see something changing. But I'd like someone to convince me that Censorship, as Western society believes, is universally bad.

Ending with this quote that sums it up for me:

“There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them.” -- Joseph Brodsky

 

[Master Mew]

As John Stuart Mill said, "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."

This is mostly how I feel about the issue, with perhaps necessary context-based exceptions (largely for the protection of younger/more sheltered audiences, though even then only in extreme instances - as defining "protection" can be a tricky business in itself).

If we're sure we're right then what do we have to fear from those who are wrong?

And if we aren't mature enough to handle certain contentious topics, perhaps we aren't mature enough to handle contentious topics at all. *shrug*

 

[Robo-Floatzel]

What is censorship but a means of hiding reality from people just to appeal to certain groups who think something is allegedly "wrong" when it's not. It is nothing more than a means of suppressing freedom of speech and desensitizing people from the truth just so people can behave certain ways as a government or religion wants. These are the only reasons that censorship exists is to make people abide by some form of law. People have the right to know things, and they should choose what they think is right and what is wrong, not have someone else tell them, as people have the ability to choose what they believe in.

 

[Beth Pavell]

My short answer: no.

I tend to agree with John Stuart Mill regarding his views on liberty and freedom of speech. Simply disagreeing with an idea is not sufficient reason to suppress it. And, though democracy works on the principle of the majority getting its own way, more people disagreeing with an idea does not equal better reason to suppress it. The healthiest states in the world tend to be those where people are able to voice their political opinions freely and peacefully, even when they vehemently disagree with one another.

However, when we talk about freedom of speech and censorship, there is a tendency to only think about it in political terms - in other words, of the individual's liberty to freely criticise the state. The problem is that the same principles that apply there, don't automatically apply to other institutions. You can't conflate the state with a large broadcaster, for example. And if a broadcasting company, or publication, makes its profit from catering to the views of a specific group of people, why then should one of their employees be protected from damaging those profits when they espouse an opposing view? You could counter-argue that everyone has a right to a work life and a private life, and that one should be able to separate their work-politics from their private-politics and I would agree - but here my real point is that already the issue isn't black and white.

There's also the question of other rights to consider. When one person's freedom of speech impacts upon the rights of another person, should freedom of speech be upheld above all others? As far as I'm concerned, the answer should clearly be no, especially when many people's freedom of speech impacts upon one individual. The proceedings of a criminal trial might well be closed and therefore censored in order to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial, or the victim from intimidation, or witnesses from reprisal.

Further, consider a situation where many people bombard an individual with their views to the point where they have no escape? That used to be called harassment, now it's called trolling. Should the freedom of speech be upheld over the right to privacy? The right to be able to live without fear? I suspect it's easy to say "yes" when you're not the one hiding from the world, wondering if one of those violent threats might actually have been genuine.

It's easy to see why the state should have limits in its power over the individual - after all, the state is in a place of great temporal power, while the individual is relatively powerless. However, doesn't this state of affairs also apply to the public (As a group of many people not necessarily part of a formal movement, but nevertheless working together) and the individual? If we agree that the powerless individual should be protected from the powerful state, why should we not also agree that the powerless individual be protected from the powerful public?

Censorship, and freedom of speech, goes beyond the merely ideological.

 

[DerMißingno]

First of all, I want to say that free speech is not an automatic green light to say whatever you want free of consequence. Even in a free society, there are things that you cannot say in public if you value your reputation. If you don't value your public image, or you actually want your public image to be negative, then you can go ahead and say whatever hateful things you want, like the Westboro Baptist Church does. Being publicly ridiculed for saying things is not censorship, it is the consequence of your decision to freely state your unpopular opinion. This is why people or companies sometimes choose to remain what we call "politically correct." They aren't forced to use politically correct phrasing, they use it because they believe it to be in their own best interest.

Secondly, a private institution, be it a private home, a company, or an online Pokemon forum, has the right to create and enforce its own terms of service. The user accepts these terms of service when they sign up, knowing full well that if they say or do something that violates the terms of service, there will be consequences. That is not censorship. That website (let's use the website example for the remainder of this hypothetical) cannot prevent you from posting whatever you want to post anywhere else on the internet. If it is against the rules of a website to make a dick joke and you make one and get banned, then you have not been censored, you have been punished for breaking a rule that you agreed to by creating an account. You can go post your dick joke somewhere else if you want.

As for the question, yes, I think that censorship is always unacceptable. It should not be for the state to decide what people should and should not see. Obviously we have seen the most extreme case of this in Stalinist Russia and the Warsaw Pact, where people feel like they are walking on eggshells and are not even free in their own mind. It's a constant weight that everyone must carry on their shoulders, the thought that if they say the wrong thing they can disappear from the face of the earth. Of course that is the most extreme case. We have had (slightly) less extreme cases in the United States, where during certain time periods you could face serious consequences if you were found to have communist sympathies. A free flow of ideas is very important to maintain. However, if the question is "should anyone be able to say whatever they want in any situation without consequence," then my answer would be absolutely not.

 

[Master Mew]

First of all, I want to say that free speech is not an automatic green light to say whatever you want free of consequence.

Agreed.

Being publicly ridiculed for saying things is not censorship, it is the consequence of your decision to freely state your unpopular opinion.

Agreed.

Secondly, a private institution, be it a private home, a company, or an online Pokemon forum, has the right to create and enforce its own terms of service.

Agreed.

The user accepts these terms of service when they sign up, knowing full well that if they say or do something that violates the terms of service, there will be consequences.

Agreed.

That is not censorship.

I disagree, but sussing out whether or not private entities policing their own domains of influence "counts" as censorship isn't really relevant to the topic, since I think we both know the OP was using censorship in the sense that includes private entities.

So we come right back to where we started: "Is [whatever-you-want-to-call-privatized-censorship] always unacceptable?"

...I suppose we'll probably have to define "unacceptable," too. I'm guessing nobody is going to seriously argue that doing so should be illegal/unconstitutional for a private business/website/etc., so we probably mean "unfavorable/unbeneficial."

---

So:

"Is [whatever-you-want-to-call-privatized-censorship] always [unfavorable]"?

In my opinion:

If we're sure we're right then what do we have to fear from those who are wrong?

And if we aren't mature enough to handle certain contentious topics, perhaps we aren't mature enough to handle contentious topics at all. *shrug*

Redefining a Question ≠ Answering a Question

 

[Osprey]

I like how you mentioned Fahrenheit 451 because it addresses this whole issue very directly. Censorship exists to keep people from getting upset. You put a few volatile ideas out there, print some controversy, state an unpopular opinion... people will get upset, and, in extreme cases, go nuts and riot. That's why F451's world was so full of censorship; to keep the masses manageable and docile, all information is either watered down or obliterated altogether. "Political correctness"- a concept I absolutely despise- is imposed for out of the same sentiments: don't upset anyone, keep everyone happy! It's a slippery slope. You start taking out a few things here that displease some people, then you keep taking more and more, til you got firemen pumping kerosene into the libraries.

Oddly enough, there was a case of censorship just recently on this very forum. I myself commented on the issue; I know a few of you here did too. The thread was removed because its topic was much too controversial; it apparently went against everything this community stands for and asked us to contemplate one of the most vile ideas in human history. I understand why the topic itself was removed, but it's an example on how this stuff gets started. While this one was an extreme idea that most decent humans would find horrifying, it doesn't take much to shift this kind of sentiment to less extreme and less evil ideas.

 

[DerMißingno]

@Master Mew; I disagree with your assertion that private entities enforcing policy is censorship. If you agree to the terms of service of something that you signed up for and then do or say something that breaks those terms, then it is you who are in breach of a contract, the entity is not censoring you. You have already agreed not to talk about something by agreeing to the terms, so it can't be censorship if you have agreed to it. If you would like to talk about those things, then you need only go to a different website or start a private blog, that entity that disallows it in their ToS will not follow you.

Oddly enough, there was a case of censorship just recently on this very forum. I myself commented on the issue; I know a few of you here did too. The thread was removed because its topic was much too controversial; it apparently went against everything this community stands for and asked us to contemplate one of the most vile ideas in human history. I understand why the topic itself was removed, but it's an example on how this stuff gets started. While this one was an extreme idea that most decent humans would find horrifying, it doesn't take much to shift this kind of sentiment to less extreme and less evil ideas.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This is not censorship, this is an example of something being removed because it was a violation of the terms of service that users agreed to follow when they registered their account. There is nothing stopping anyone who really wants to discuss this from doing it anywhere that doesn't have this kind of policy.

 

[Master Mew]

@Master Mew; I disagree with your assertion that private entities enforcing policy is censorship. If you agree to the terms of service of something that you signed up for and then do or say something that breaks those terms, then it is you who are in breach of a contract, the entity is not censoring you. You have already agreed not to talk about something by agreeing to the terms, so it can't be censorship if you have agreed to it. If you would like to talk about those things, then you need only go to a different website or start a private blog, that entity that disallows it in their ToS will not follow you.

Um... ok? I agreed with you about all of that already.

I'm really not interested in debating whether or not the OP used the word "censorship" correctly with you, as the outcome will only serve to rephrase the same necessary question:

So:

"Is [whatever-you-want-to-call-privatized-censorship] always [unfavorable]"?

i.e. Is it beneficial for those restrictions to be in the Terms of Service to begin with?

---

Redefining a Question ≠ Answering a Question

 

[Phoenicks]

However, when we talk about freedom of speech and censorship, there is a tendency to only think about it in political terms - in other words, of the individual's liberty to freely criticise the state. The problem is that the same principles that apply there, don't automatically apply to other institutions. You can't conflate the state with a large broadcaster, for example. And if a broadcasting company, or publication, makes its profit from catering to the views of a specific group of people, why then should one of their employees be protected from damaging those profits when they espouse an opposing view? You could counter-argue that everyone has a right to a work life and a private life, and that one should be able to separate their work-politics from their private-politics and I would agree - but here my real point is that already the issue isn't black and white.

But what good is freedom of speech if it's only free as applies to government?

Imagine a world ruled by huge corporations that will deny you unpopular opinions. Imagine if Verizon blocked controversial text messages, or Amazon retracted unsavory books. If CNN or MSNBC edited video footage to spread certain lies, and refused to broadcast coverage of their lies, is that censorship? What if you could be fired for talking about Muslims or other minorities?

Wikipedia calls this Corporate Censorship, and I don't consider it lesser censorship if it's not backed up with guns and a flag.

There's also the question of other rights to consider. When one person's freedom of speech impacts upon the rights of another person, should freedom of speech be upheld above all others? As far as I'm concerned, the answer should clearly be no, especially when many people's freedom of speech impacts upon one individual. The proceedings of a criminal trial might well be closed and therefore censored in order to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial, or the victim from intimidation, or witnesses from reprisal.

I absolutely agree. But what, then, is our highest value, if not the pursuit of truth?

Further, consider a situation where many people bombard an individual with their views to the point where they have no escape? That used to be called harassment, now it's called trolling. Should the freedom of speech be upheld over the right to privacy? The right to be able to live without fear? I suspect it's easy to say "yes" when you're not the one hiding from the world, wondering if one of those violent threats might actually have been genuine.

I wouldn't call this freedom of speech in the same way that a controversial opinion is. Hate speech today is derided -- but this could be as tame as saying "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman". 50 years ago this opinion was trivial. I don't think there's a reasonable standard that tolerates it yesterday and condemns it today.

I'm reminded of that old cannard about fires, shouting, and crowded theaters. It was always wrong. There's a clear difference between speaking and acting, between raving about the fire and pointing out the nice man's finely-lit cigar. Trolling isn't wrong because someone said something wrong.

First of all, I want to say that free speech is not an automatic green light to say whatever you want free of consequence.

Agreed.

Even in a free society, there are things that you cannot say in public if you value your reputation.

With you so far.

If you don't value your public image, or you actually want your public image to be negative, then you can go ahead and say whatever hateful things you want, like the Westboro Baptist Church does. Being publicly ridiculed for saying things is not censorship, it is the consequence of your decision to freely state your unpopular opinion. This is why people or companies sometimes choose to remain what we call "politically correct." They aren't forced to use politically correct phrasing, they use it because they believe it to be in their own best interest.

We're mostly on the same page.

Secondly, a private institution, be it a private home, a company, or an online Pokemon forum, has the right to create and enforce its own terms of service. The user accepts these terms of service when they sign up, knowing full well that if they say or do something that violates the terms of service, there will be consequences. That is not censorship. That website (let's use the website example for the remainder of this hypothetical) cannot prevent you from posting whatever you want to post anywhere else on the internet.

Following you.

If it is against the rules of a website to make a dick joke and you make one and get banned, then you have not been censored, you have been punished for breaking a rule that you agreed to by creating an account.

For the most part, yes.

You can go post your dick joke somewhere else if you want.

Can you?

"If it is against the rules of [Cockney] to make a dick joke, and you make one and get [punished], then you have not been censored, you have been punished for breaking a rule that you agreed to by [living in Cockney]."

I started by mentioning Larry Summers and James Watson -- who were not fired because they violated some terms of employment, but because they violated some sensibilities. Malala Yousafzai was not censored by any state, but the violence done her was meant to censor. A few others: Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla for supporting the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 (which was on the ballot 6 years ago). Juan Williams was fired from NPR for saying that he gets nervous flying on a plane with people "in Muslim garb". How many college graduation commencement speakers have been shouted down by unruly mobs?

Isn't private censorship as serious as state censorship?

 

[DerMißingno]

i.e. Is it beneficial for those restrictions to be in the Terms of Service to begin with?

You're asking me if I think it's beneficial for a forum to have rules. Yes, I do think it's beneficial. We have a rule against double posting, do you think that is censorship too? Do you think we should be allowed to make a fifty Hitler post at our leisure?

As far as how far those rules should go in restricting what people say, I think that depends upon the situation. If it is a forum designed to discuss political issues, sometimes controversial, then maybe the rules can be more lax when it comes to what exactly you can post, especially if there is a high level of maturity when it comes to users. If it is a forum for fans of a video game franchise to come talk about that franchise, I think the case could be a bit different. In places like that, I wouldn't bat an eyelash if cursing was banned, since many children may be expected to post and read there. If you are really that bothered by a forum for Pokemon fans disallowing people to condone genocide, then I think you need a little bit of perspective.

Can you?

yup

I started by mentioning Larry Summers and James Watson -- who were not fired because they violated some terms of employment, but because they violated some sensibilities. Malala Yousafzai was not censored by any state, but the violence done her was meant to censor. A few others: Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla for supporting the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 (which was on the ballot 6 years ago). Juan Williams was fired from NPR for saying that he gets nervous flying on a plane with people "in Muslim garb". How many college graduation commencement speakers have been shouted down by unruly mobs?

Isn't private censorship as serious as state censorship?

Malala Yousafzai was shot in the face. I don't know what the laws are like in Pakistan but I'm pretty sure in most places shooting someone in the face for any reason is a crime. Violence against anyone, especially for what they believe, is a horrible thing. When the WBC protests, there is often a police line protecting them. At least in the United States, society does its best to not allow violent crime against people based on what they believe to happen. One person does not have the right to vote with a gun.

As far as people getting fired from their jobs, I don't know if I can form an opinion on that because I don't know the full story. I don't know how much keeping an employee with certain views will effect how the company works or how well they do. Maybe it is wrong.

And finally, I don't know how many college graduation commencement speakers have been shouted down by unruly mobs, how many?

 

[Osprey]

Malala Yousafzai was shot in the face. I don't know what the laws are like in Pakistan but I'm pretty sure in most places shooting someone in the face for any reason is a crime. Violence against anyone, especially for what they believe, is a horrible thing.

It's hard to punish the extremists who shot this girl in the face when they're essentially a law unto themselves. When the violent bunch runs the show, they do whatever they want, which includes censoring anyone who contradicts their nutjob beliefs by gunning them down. The ones who carried out this act certainly didn't think brutal violence against a person's (particularly a woman's) beliefs was horrible; they more than likely saw it as some twisted kind of justice.

 

[Master Mew]

You're asking me if I think it's beneficial for a forum to have rules.

Redefining the question to more favorable ground again? Yes, that's totally what I said, that forums shouldn't have rules. Just like saying governments shouldn't censor is like saying nations shouldn't have laws.

You're too bright for me to dignify that with a response.

If it is a forum for fans of a video game franchise to come talk about that franchise, I think the case could be a bit different. In places like that, I wouldn't bat an eyelash if cursing was banned, since many children may be expected to post and read there. If you are really that bothered by a forum for Pokemon fans disallowing people to condone genocide, then I think you need a little bit of perspective.

I believe my original stated position made room for your assertion, actually:

And if we aren't mature enough to handle certain contentious topics, perhaps we aren't mature enough to handle contentious topics at all. *shrug*

Historically I've been of the opinion that if we don't feel we're mature enough as a community to handle serious topics, maybe we shouldn't have serious discussions. Selective permissiveness/ideological favoritism is just patronizing.

 

[Lysson]

It really depends to what degree. I find language censorship unacceptable if you're watching something late at night and it has an age rating (an example being South Park, it shows gore and stuff but beeps (I hate the sound of the beep anyway) out bad words?) and sometimes theme censorship (like death in Pokemon, this is in Origins and Y. Yet Disney can show blood, death and murder).

However I do support censorship if it is put in place to prevent people committing crimes (this can be taken to stupid extremes though like people wanting to ban FPS) but even so it must be within reason. Such as banning Taliban videos and even censoring Misty's very revealing clothes in one of the mangas as these are very needed censorships.

 

[winstein]

Before this topic was created, I made a related topic about Adult Content Censorship. While the topic is about censorship in general, I can't help but feel that what I say will not be as relevant to the type of censorship being talked about here, which are more to do with the censorship of agendas and ideas. However, since it is relevant to the topic in general, I believe it is alright to talk about this.

So, about censorship on adult content. I am pretty surprised that there exists adult content in places where you don't normally encounter them, especially on TV shows, so the idea that humour is derived from outsmarting the censors is somewhat amusing. It actually seems like a foreign idea that it is supposed to be entertaining to be able to do this, so I am wondering if the absence of censorship on TV is preferable, since censors aren't perfect in blocking inappropriate material.

The media is a very powerful tool, so any idea that is presented is sure to spread. On the one hand, adult content censorship prevents exposure to things some people couldn't handle, due to their inexperience. For example, there's smoking. Perhaps if a character is charismatic enough, those who watch it will likely imitate their habit. On the other hand, certain themes cannot be talked about in a direct manner, thereby leaving one to be educated on such matters through other means. Sometimes, they might not be educated in the right way, which is a problem.

I don't know if this is true in real life, but I got the impression from the internet that this brand of censorship is not a good thing, because people like to see things uncensored. I guess one example is Yu-gi-oh's censorship, but in that case, that is understandable because the changes took away from the source material as to make it less enjoyable. However, I heard that some creators (like one Regular Show writer) apparently like the existence of censorship because it gives them a benchmark in which to slip in material they enjoy, while not going too over-the-top.

If censorship is taken in the context that it would prevent unintentional offence by certain groups, then it is a good thing they are there to do the job, but if censorship is used to block people who intentionally want to offend people or be edgy with their material, then I guess those creators might as well have no censorship or be confined in places where they themselves could enjoy such material (or prevent their work from being shown). However, if a creator were to feel that whatever they want to show might not be comfortable yet is important nonetheless, perhaps a compromise could be made as to make it presentable, or if that's not possible, then I guess some faith should be had that the original doesn't cause any harm and people could handle it.

I suppose it all comes down to moderation, in which material should be able to convey any idea, but it should be in such a way that it doesn't offend certain target groups or present a bad influence.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Master Mew]

So, about censorship on adult content. I am pretty surprised that there exists adult content in places where you don't normally encounter them, especially on TV shows, so the idea that humour is derived from outsmarting the censors is somewhat amusing. It actually seems like a foreign idea that it is supposed to be entertaining to be able to do this, so I am wondering if the absence of censorship on TV is preferable, since censors aren't perfect in blocking inappropriate material.

I actually think the balance networks create in those scenarios is beneficial, since while the adult content is still being slipped into generally family-oriented programs, but it's forced to be done in more subtle ways that tend to go over the heads of the children the censorship is trying to protect - so it's sort of a win/win.

At least that's my opinion. Obviously writers could do that anyway in absence of network censorship, and some would, but I do think in the instance of children's programming the guarantee is worth the censorship.

Censoring adult content on adult programming, though? Yeah I don't get that, either.

 

[DerMißingno]

On the topic of television censorship, I think we can probably do better in America. I know in Scandinavia you are allowed to say whatever you want on television. It kind of threw me off guard for a second when I heard "fuck" on television in the early evening in Norway. You tell me if it has corrupted their society. The "beep" thing kind of baffles me anyway, because it's not like anyone doesn't know what they are saying. We still get the idea of the word even if we don't actually have to hear it.

Also, I think one of the great hypocrisies of TV censorship is that we get to see pretty much any gory violent act they want to show, but seeing a female nipple is the worst thing in the universe.

 

[CrackFox]

On the topic of television censorship, I think we can probably do better in America. I know in Scandinavia you are allowed to say whatever you want on television. It kind of threw me off guard for a second when I heard "fuck" on television in the early evening in Norway. You tell me if it has corrupted their society. The "beep" thing kind of baffles me anyway, because it's not like anyone doesn't know what they are saying. We still get the idea of the word even if we don't actually have to hear it.

Also, I think one of the great hypocrisies of TV censorship is that we get to see pretty much any gory violent act they want to show, but seeing a female nipple is the worst thing in the universe.

You're very right there. Did you know AMC limits the amount of sex/nudity The Walking Dead is allowed to show? When you look at all the violent visuals, zombies ripping apart humans with their teeth etc. It's so dumb. As much as I hate sex scenes and find them uncomfortable to watch in front of family/gratuitous in general, I kind of respect HBO/Game of Thrones for being so liberal about sex. It's refreshing almost. I don't see any negative impact on society or the millions of GoT fans either >.>

 

[Satoshi-chan]

You're very right there. Did you know AMC limits the amount of sex/nudity The Walking Dead is allowed to show?

I've head that AMC also limits the amount of f-words that Breaking Bad was allowed to have per season (one per season, if I remember correctly), which meant that the writers would find the best possible way to use that particular word.

While I can understand keeping that certain word to a minimum for film ratings (like if a studio wants a more family friendly rating on their movie), but I don't really understand the point when it comes to a cable television show whose subject matter is about as non family friendly as one can get.

 

[Fig]

I like that they limit it, actually.

It forces the writers to be creative and not to really excessively on swearing and sexing for shock value to try and get their audience's attention. Genuine writing, not appealing to the lowest common denominator.