Would have voted "Other." No right is absolute and every right is weighed and balanced against competing rights. To therefore assert that censorship is always and everywhere unacceptable is to ignore much nuance and context.
It is indeed a right. However, as the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke put it, "The rights of men in governments are their advantages; and these are often in balances between differences of good; in compromises sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes, between evil and evil. Political reason is a computing principle in adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing, morally and not metaphysically or mathematically, true moral denominations."
Such rights, Burke added, do exist, but "their abstract perfection is their practical defect... All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences; we give and take; we remit some rights, that we may enjoy others; and we choose rather to be happy citizens than subtle disputants.”
Thus on censorship, we limit free speech - which somewhere along the line mutatis mutandis became free "expression" - in all sorts of ways. The law does not allow libel, slander or copyright infringement. The law, famously, does not allow an individual to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The law does not allow a person to disrupt a religious service. Speech designed to incite violence or harm in a public context, is restricted and often banned. A person may not threaten physical harm to another. Pornography is limited to those 18 or older.
Without exception, every right, free speech included, has time, manner and customary restraints imposed on it. No right is absolute and the restrictions on the right of free speech is censorship.
"Take but degree away, untune that string and hark!! What discord follows." The absolutist position on any right is dogma. It spares the individual the torture - and for the dogmatist and the ideologue it IS torture - of having to think through the implications and limitations of the views that they espouse. Suffice to say, ignore those practical limitations and many bad things follow.
The question, properly phrased, is not an either/or about censorship. Rather it is a question of what degree and what limits. In a constitutional context, political speech is given - and ought be given - a very wide, though even there not unlimited - scope. Pornography, to cite but one example, ought be given a far more limited sway.
Disraeli said "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics." The extent and limit of any right is determined by all sorts of factors and is a never ending debate. To take then an absolutist position on such rights is neither sensible, nor practical and indeed will, in the end, be self-defeating.
As Henry M. Roberts said, "Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty."
u The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The government may not make laws which restrict our freedom of speech, but this is not an absolute and unfettered right to say whatever you feel like saying. If you make a threat to murder someone, you can be arrested and prosecuted. If you make false statements about a product or service, you can be held liable for false advertising.
The First Amendment does NOT prohibit private individuals from restricting your freedom of speech. An employer can prohibit you from discussing politics while you are "on the clock." The grocery store can prohibit from standing at their entrance for the purpose of trying to persuade voters to vote for a particular candidate.
Freedom of speech is not so simple that you can be for or against it without qualification.
I think there's a middle ground.
Some things must be censored or protected. Dangerous or private information, certain types of rhetoric (think cult or indoctorination), etc.
But there has certainly been an increase in unnecessary and over zealous censoring. Ideas, thoughts, contrary points with adequate proof and support - as much as feelings may be hurt, these things should not be censored.
The question is the greater good and how to protect that.
I've been censored many times online because my narrative often doesn't fit the preferred narrative of the circles I've run in.
I believe that sort of censorship - censorship dedicated to thought policing - to be Orwellian and bad.
I used to be hardcore against censorship. But growing up with the internet, I'm less and less so. Most of us just aren't responsible enough to be entitled to say whatever we want. Inevitably, in an open community, some authority has to censor behavior b/c there'll be sadists who just enjoy hurting things/others.
Opinion
22Opinion
I despise it probably to some unhealthy level as it bothers me more than it should. Well, I worked in tech for American companies, and in particular, I worked in one where they hired new staff that was trying to make the environment as "sanitized" and politically correct and "professional" as possible.
And I saw it doing was destroying the kind of friendly banter we had while people walked on eggshells as well as draining all the energy and life out of the team. I even got in trouble with HR one time because I was driving the team and almost had an accident and I tried to diffuse that situation with an Asian joke. Then someone reported it to HR and I got in trouble for it. I'm not allowed to make Asian driving jokes now? I am only half-Asian but it was meant to be self-deprecating.
So I hate that sort of thing. I think it's divisive -- this attempt to shush people, and media, thinking it's going to lead to a decent society. I only see one where everyone's afraid to say what they really think.
Censorship (and discrimination) are necessarily evils of a free society. I know what I just wrote sounds incompatible, but please read on.
If you don't have censorship, you'll have billboards with full nudity, your young kids will hear foul language and see cartoons depicting people doing drugs. News outlets will show bloodied corpses from various murders that took place. Advertisers would make totally false claims about their products with no liability toward "truth in advertising".
Censorship is necessary. The same with discrimination. If you don't allow those two things to happen, your idea of a totally "free" society will be chaos.
Now... some people are viewing this Q as a form of censorship over what people say - because they don't like what someone else is saying. Yet, that's EXACTLY what has happened at MANY colleges, especially Berkeley University when conservative speakers were scheduled to talk at the college. Because many of the students HATE (that's the precise word for their behavior) that some people disagree with their views on socialism, politics, conservatism, and the environment, they "censored" the speakers to prevent them from even coming on campus, to the point of threatening violence if they did.
Censorship is necessary, but it also needs to be CAREFULLY tempered to still allow the vast majority to have freedom of speech and expression. With freedom, you also NEED to exercise responsibility.
I am pro-censorship under certain circumstances. For example, there is no need for young children to be exposed to overly violent, sexual, or prejudice content.
I'm also from the UK where, contrary to popular belief, we do not have freedom of speech. If you shout racist stuff in the streets it is classed as hate speech and you may be arrested for it.
There are many other things that could be censored that I don't believe should be but it is an extremely broad discussion with cases that are not black and white.
Tldr: yes, some censorship is necessary, I don't think you have the right to say whatever you want to my child, but there are things that shouldn't be censored.
I'm also against censorship.
I think that hiding things behind censorship can hurt people more then help them.
For example, hiding the true effects of depression and anxiety behind the " it encourages suicide" excuse.
If there was someone for these people to talk to who understood they'll be less likely to do so.
In order for that understanding to come about you have to stop pretending like depression isn't a problem in hiding it behind giant sensor bar.
Same thing goes with sex and violence the more you hide it the less you know how to combat it.
This is where I disagree with conservative politics. I’m strongly in favor of censorship depending on what’s being censored. I don’t think it should be legal to promote transsexuality or homosexuality or other deviant and degenerate behaviors. I don’t think it should be legal to promote and endorse socialism or communism as those things directly undermine our way of life. So I am in favor of limited censorship. I do think always people ought to be able to speak their minds, to petition their government, to criticize their government and its leaders, I just don’t think people should be able to endorse and promote ideas or concepts that are clearly bad for individuals or the country. That undermine our country and it’s way of life or are things that adversely affect families and individuals because they are degenerate and vile in nature.
Say what you say, but within reason, OK? Don't purposely try to upset, or anger others, and just be respectful!
This crap, today about what words are acceptable and not, on college campuses, the places of "Higher Learning" make our Founding Fathers turn in their graves! It is CENSORSHIP in the most blatant form, in a place where people are supposed to learn, develop and grow the most!
Same as you.
Where I'm stranded at, we are oppressed and suppressed. Censorship soon may reach that of China. If you speak up, the government slaps a criminal record on your body with the tag "Terrorist".
Gotta redefine "Terrorist" to a rebel.
Freedom. FREEDOM. If you let them have an inch they'll take a mile. Don't ever take your freedom for granted.
Modern day Censorship is mostly used to counter inconvenient truths the political left don't want us to talk about. Censorship is the wrecking ball being use to bring down western society in front of eyes us all while silencing our objections.
It is a tool that today is being used by the political Left more than the Right to shut-down any that go against the narrative and dissenting against the they dogma espouse with the truth against rumour, facts against propaganda.
By government? Or on a privately owned platform?
I don’t think people should be obliged to publish material against their will.
I don't think it's right. It doesn't "protect" anyone from anything. They are going to hear/see these things at some point or some way, so why censor it? It just seems silly to me.
I don't support it in any way and am whole heartily against it.
Government: illegal
Companies on their own property: perfectly fine. They are not government.
I don't support any form of censorship. I'm all for freedom. The only speech I would restrict is harassment because it's just annoying and useless.
I think there are some things that children shouldn't be exposed to.
It is fascism pure and simple the slippery slope to communists conrol
Not a fan, the reason sex, and nudity, is censored is because of republicans, especially social conservatives.
So you're saying that only people who agree with you should be protected from censorship?
I think it’s dumb some of the things that are censored
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions