Do you think censorship has no place in a free society?

[Juxtapose]

Yes

No

Updates

+1 y

To clarify, voting "Yes" means you do not think censorship has a place in a free society.

[Oigit]

Censorship is about control. People can try to say differently or justify it every way they can, but human history has shown time and time again that censorship is all about control. People that advocate for censorship don't realize that their way of thinking is already being controlled. Due to use of things like the illusory truth effect. Also they fail to realize that speech is also the language of thought. So to preserve free thought and free will in general speech itself must remain free. Because we you censor and control peoples speech, you also censor and control their thoughts, thus strip away their free will.

[Juxtapose]

You get it!

I just replied to someone who is arguing that censorship should exist because of children. What a disgusting line of logic.

[Oigit]

In general kids are a hell of a lot smarter then most people give them credit for. So the best policy is to have honest conversations with them about a given topic or issue. Because they probably already know something about it and are actively talking/thinking about it. Also when you push to protect them from everything and avoid talking about hard topics, you leave them ill-equipped deal with life. That is especially true for life as fully functional independent adult. So pushing for censorship for the sake of kids and people a over protective parent only ensures children will never be a fully functional independent adult.

[TonightYouu]

I consider censorship as stifling knowledge and as withholding truth which is lying which is evil

[nightdrot]

Generally, the answer would have been "yes." However, the problem is that the question is too generalized and lacks nuance in several respects.

To start, censorship by whom? If a parent tells his child that he may not watch a television show, that is censorship and is perfectly acceptable in a free society. If the government tells the citizen that they may not read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," that is censorship at a different level and is an altogether different question.

Even government, in a free society, however, gets some latitude. The government bans children from purchasing pornography. That is a prudent decision made by a society that wants freedom of thought and speech, but that also wants a well ordered moral society with children who are raised to think of human relations as a thing of dignity. Indeed, take away that upbringing and a "free society" becomes problematic. As George Will said, and also wrote a book by the same title, "statecraft is soulcraft."

Further, a free society has the authority to protect military and other secrets related to national security. Classified information is just that - classified. It is not intended, nor could any prudent free society wish that its security secrets be published.

Of course, this becomes subtle. A question of what secrets ought be secret, and that is why, as Disraeli said, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics." These questions are routinely revisited and debated and the lines are always being redrawn - as indeed they are even redrawn on questions like pornography.

Once upon a time, pornography was banned outright. Now it is available in certain venues to people over a certain age. Even then, pornographic photos cannot be displayed on the street as that is indecency.

The bottom line being the general principle is correct and is a logical and prudent starting point. Censorship cannot in principle be part of a free society. One is incompatible with the other. Yet, that is only the starting point. From there, free societies are free to debate the limits of the principle.

[Juxtapose]

Something practical like the military keeping secrets is a necessary evil but moral censorship can go suck a dick.

[nightdrot]

Really? So it is okay to expose children to porn? That will have no impact on how they develop or what kind of citizens they might become? For that matter, done on a mass scale, that will have no effect on the character of the citizenry and the nature of the society itself?

Again, the principle as an absolute is problematic. To borrow from Burke, it's "abstract perfection is its' practical defect."

[Juxtapose]

It's the parents job to police what kids watch man. I can tell you from my experience as a kid that censorship did not stop me from playing or viewing whatever I wanted.

[nightdrot]

Yes, but if the culture is at war with the ethics of the parents, who is likely to win? See also the "hippies" in the past and the current controversies over what is being taught in the schools.

Expose a generation to decadent and decadence is apt to follow. That will have an effect on a "free society" and bring into question its viability. As Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please, we ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

If you agree, to use a different example, that anti-semitism or slavery deserve full expression, then you by default grant anti-semitism and slavery the potential to prevail. This why wise societies, culturally when possible, legally when necessary, set parameters on debate.

[Juxtapose]

I am not afraid of something like anti-semitism. You defeat hate speech through more speech, not repression. I stand by what the founding fathers believed in their vision for this country. All Americans should be free to speak their minds as if they are completely alone and have no fear of reprisal.

[Juxtapose]

Excluding threats and whatnot of course.

[Juxtapose]

By shutting something like neo-nazism away from the free and open marketplace of ideas you are admitting that you cannot defeat that idea and thus it gives the idea even more power and appeal.

[nightdrot]

By no means. To repeat, if you give license to the expression of an idea, you give that idea the right to prevail. You have a faith in human nature and human reason that is not at all justified in history.

Again, to be sure, to err on the side of open debate is the better starting point. However, life and politics are complicated and the good guys don't always prevail through sweet reason.

[Juxtapose]

[nightdrot]

Well, I am a Hamiltonian, not a Jeffersonian. Besides, if Jefferson is right, then there really is no basis on which to keep classified information secret.

After all, if the Russians and/or the Chinese should have it revealed to them the extent and limits of our national security apparatus, at least we can take comfort in the fact that we were true to Jefferson's principle. The irony being that even in his own day, Jefferson was not entirely true to his principles.

[Juxtapose]

Well I would argue keeping military business secret is not related to freedom. It's an unfortunate necessity that clouds transparency though absolutely.

[nightdrot]

Well, I am not sure of your point. The bottom line is that I suggested that while the general principle articulated in your question was not wrong, it was insufficiently nuanced to take into account other factors. Military secrets being the easiest demonstration of the point, but as noted, there are others.

[BullShark]

To me, the whole idea of censorship is stupid and nonsensical anyways. Like take my country for example, all the local dramas and movies made here are stupidly censored to the point that even the story itself needs to be made according to the wishes of the censorship board or else risk getting taken down.

You can't show a kiss scene, not even a simple hug between couples, or even a genuine show of romance on-screen. Moreover, blood and weapons are also censored and fogged out (which honestly looks stupid as hell) and really obvious. I won't even go into nudity, cursing and taboo topics either because those are completely out of the question as well. They want producers to make films and dramas which are ONLY family friendly. Anything else, and it's a big no. And then they wonder why nobody likes any of the local movies and dramas and why almost everyone turns to western ones.

One thing these censorship board guys I feel like don't understand is that there is a thing called genres and age ratings. You don't NEED to make every single form of media family friendly. That's a whole other genre. But you should still make content which also caters to other target audiences. Otherwise they won't have any other choice but to turn to other forms of media and ditch your's. And besides, if you're worried about your kids growing up with bad things around them, trust me, the world is bad enough. Censoring a word like "fuck" or "shit" doesn't mean your kids don't already use those words in their every day speech already. This is the 21st century ffs. As for the other things like nsfw genres and whatnot, this is the age of the internet and everyone has an access to a phone where they can just sit there and search up anything you try to hide anyways.

[Datboi65]

Everything has limits, even freedom of speech. What people don't often understand is that having free speech doesn't protect you from being sued for defamation, neither does it protect you from getting fired. Whether you like it or not, what you say will affect you in some situations. Now I agree that the government shouldn't dictate what you can and cannot say - unless you're leaking out classified info to other governments, in that case you can be criminalized for your speech - but regardless of that, people and institutions have the absolute right to react to your speech in a negative manner.

When you discuss "censorship" you need to be specific. Censorship by the government is an issue, censorship in social media platforms is not an issue, because policy is not law, and you have to agree to their policy if you want to start and account. They are not enforcing any unwritten rule, it's all available in the terms and conditions section. In that case social media doesn't offer you absolute free speech, but if you didn't like that, then don't use it, or make your own version. It's that simple.

[RolandCuthbert]

No matter what you freaks claim. . . a private business cannot engage in censorship no matter what it does. If you do not like a company's political positions, its terms of service, its products, etc. you are "free" to go to another company.

There can be no law forcing a business to hire liberals, to service liberals or cater to liberals. Capitalism dictates that businesses with a poor strategy will fail. Ones with a good strategy will succeed.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/570251-georgia-restaurant-owner-says-biden-supporters-should-take-business/

A Florida restaurant owner angry over the deaths of U. S. soldiers during the evacuation from Afghanistan has a message for supporters of President Biden: “Take your business elsewhere.”

Angie Ugarte, the owner of DeBary Diner, posted a sign on her establishment’s front door that caught the attention of Fox 35 Orlando.

“If you voted for and continue to support and stand behind the worthless, inept and corrupt administration currently inhabiting the White House that is complicit in the death of our servicemen and women in Afghanistan, please take your business elsewhere,” the sign reads.

[Snsl153]

Freaks? All he did was ask a simple question. "A private business cannot engage in censorship", you claim. What about Facebook? Google? Twitter? YouTube? Don't they all censor views they don't like, or at least (in the case of Google and YouTube) make it much harder for you to find what you're after? Why are people banned for "hate-speech" (whatever the hell that's supposed to be)? Once again you've demonstrated that you live in an alternative reality to the rest of us here.

[RealMarek]

@RolandCuthbert Are you familiar with ESG requirements promulgated by the federal government and enforced on all major corporations and private equity institutions? As a percentage of the economy, the vast majority of business is heavily regulated, largely funded directly by government spending or by the Federal Reserve system via Black Rock and Vanguard, and controlled by an elite that will punish people who speak against their ideology, If one is not free to speak without risk of being fired or worse, it matters little whether the definition of censorship is met or whether there is free speech de jure; freedom of speech de facto is only for the wealthy in this case.

[Juxtapose]

Funny how you say this Ronald when Kyle Kulinski doesn't agree with you at all, he's a guy in charge of secular talk. The first minute of this video below discusses how Kyle Kulinski firmly believes that the public square is now in the digital space and laws should change to reflect that.

https://youtu.be/7IN7bR_z4Kw

[RolandCuthbert]

@Snsl153 Yes freaks. Because what you advocate for is socialism. I don't give a fuck that a company refuses to service me. I care if the government comes in and makes my business decisions for me. That's why we call it Capitalism.

This is GaG. It is a social network. I have had dozens upon dozens of posts and threads removed because of the terms of service GaG claims that we must observe. I have seen dozens upon dozens of post and threads that I feel have broken TOS, but have not been removed.

That is GaG's decision. And there is no government, no court, or legislative body that can overturn that decision. They will pay for it by losing customers or profit by gaining customers.

And I don't care if a bunch of trolls think they have some salient point. I care about the law and the reach of the government. Keep the government out of my business. If we disagree political too fucking bad.

Go whine to ya mama. I just do not care.

Private businesses mean private.

[RolandCuthbert]

@RealMarek Where do you get that ESG requirements are created by the federal government? And a vast amount of businesses are heavily regulated? Based upon what evidence? There are all kinds of metrics for grading capitalism. And the U. S. is always near the top in every single analysis. The thing is, there is no such thing as a nation that is 100% capitalist. Such a state could not exist, just like a 100% communist state could not exist. Because of in both scenarios, there would be no federal government.

By the way I can find no evidence that ESG requirements are forced on anyone. Oil and coil companies might complain because they take on subsidies. So here is a thought. If they think they are being forced, they can always say no to the subsidies and return that money to the American taxpayer.

This is a conservative analysis. There are others that say fossil industries get trillions.

"First, let’s consider just the direct subsidies for fossil fuel production—money that flows directly from the government to fossil fuel companies to support activities like exploration, extraction, and development. A conservative estimate from Oil Change International puts the U. S. total at around $20.5 billion annually, including $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives. A whopping 80 percent of this goes to oil and gas (with the rest supporting coal), and most of the subsidies are in the form of tax deductions and exemptions and other “obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks” that result in massive avoided costs for fossil fuel producers."

[RolandCuthbert]

Why would I give a fuck about what Kyle says? I don't look at youtube videos to find folks to follow. I know my own beliefs. And if I create a social network that is immensely popular, I won't be punished for being successful. And I won't have the government enforce its version free speech on my platform.

Because we all know that there is no such thing as a social network that does not censor speech. Even truthsocial deletes posts. It is just a matter of what you personally feel is free speech. So since that is the case let Capitalism decide who will be a success and who will be a failure.

Isn't you guys who claim "going woke means going broke"?

Well, let the results speak for themselves.

[Juxtapose]

Glad to see you don't care that the new public square is censored to all hell xD Geez.

Telecommunication companies can't censor my phone calls.

[Juxtapose]

Why should Google be any different?

[RolandCuthbert]

Nah, that's just semantics. Facebook was a great idea that took off. Because it is so popular you want to take the platform away from Zuckerberg and claim it is "public domain". I think Zuckerberg is a stone cold dick. But I would never take a person's property simply because I disagree with them politically.

Even if you owned Facebook, I wouldn't claim you have to give it up. But you are dumb as fuck, so the world is safe.

But your point is still the same backwards nonsense, that because a guy is really smart and makes something really popular, you have the right to make claims on his property. You can't even do that here at GaG. Try whining about a deleted post. They don't give a fuck. GaG owners. . ."own" this. And they will do what they will with it.

[RolandCuthbert]

What the fuck do you mean by "google"?

Its like you beat yourself with an idiot stick daily. There are thousands of social networks, search engines, etc.

We live in a Capitalistic society. If you want to get to the top, you had better work at it. You don't have the government intervene to boost one company over another. If you want your version of free speech go to GAB or the vaunted truthsocial. And if insane rants about conspiracy theories, outright lies and threats of violence does not fit the American people's tastes, you can't force that on them because of your extremist views.

https://gab.com/

[Juxtapose]

Are telecommunication companies stifled because they are not allowed to censor?

[RolandCuthbert]

You are not using rational thinking.

Would you use a phone company if the phone company censored your speech?

Think carefully. Don't break your delicate brain. Remember I mentioned a word;

"capitalism".

[Juxtapose]

We don't have a true capitalist system man, it's crony capitalism and you know it.

You get big as a company or corporation, you bribe the right politicians and then you can screw over your competition and steadily form a monopoly.

[Juxtapose]

For example, gas companies have been slowing down the process of green energy because of their greed. That is not an open marketplace.

[RolandCuthbert]

Uhm, there is no such thing as a true "Capitalistic" system. It does not exist in the real world. Because a true capitalistic system would not have any way to collect taxes.

I asked a pretty simple question.

Would you use a phone company that said it would censor your voice calls?

Is the question too complicated for you?

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, you have wandered pretty far off the path.

Why does this support your theory that your version of free speech should be the standard for every social network? Then additionally, what makes your version of free speech the right one? What is your argument based upon? Is it a legal argument? A religious one?

And how is this not socialism? You force every single social network to one operating standard. Eliminating all differences for freedom of choice for people who may want a more liberal view, one focused on Indigenous issues, others who claim to be Conservative, ones that support the Taliban. . .

You eliminate the ability of Capitalism to give people variety and options. Because you want everyone to process your extremist nonsense. You don't want them to be able to choose something different for themselves and their families.

[Juxtapose]

I want social media websites to become public utilities like telecommunication companies are. And frankly I don't really give a shit about companies or corporations, they are not people and do not have the same rights. They should be regulated to hell and back because they cannot be trusted to keep a free market up and running. They will create monopolies and then become more powerful than governments themselves and eventually dominate the entire globe.

[Juxtapose]

If you didn't force companies to pay people minimum wage or you didn't force companies to not employ children then they would happily cross those moral lines. Fuck businesses, all they care about is the bottom line and they will do any sociopathic thing you allow them to.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, you can want whatever. It is one of the stupidest ideas in the history of ideas. It is disingenuous. Because you don't want every social network regulated. You only want the ones that are popular.

And what nation outside of China, Russia, etc. is going to become so socialist that it prevents a person with brilliant ideas about building a social network from starting his business.

That is something that ruins economies, stopping people from being creative and building companies and platforms. The reason why our economy is stronger than China is because of its diversity.

[Juxtapose]

Dude, all telecommunication companies are regulated the same and they make bank. I don't see the problem here.

[RolandCuthbert]

It still doesn't provide any support for claiming the government should enforce your standard of freedom of speech on everyone else.

So you don't bother with logic or rationale. You just rant. . . right?

Anyway GaB claimed to be a free speech platform, then went about deleting posts that voiced support for Robert Bowers.

That's their choice. No one should care what you think about it. Because it isn't like you are a rational human being.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude nothing you say supports your point. I mean take your meds. See a counselor.

But whatever you do, connect the dots. If a phone company told you they were going to censor your speech, you would not use them.

Your weird tangent about regulations and standards have nothing to do with you claiming facebook should adopt your standards for free speech. If you don't like facebook, where you know your views and posts will be censored, use a different social network. Just like you would if you were told by a phone company they would censor you. You can't force people to adopt your Taliban extremist nonsense.

[Juxtapose]

So you would allow a phone company to censor you and not want to get them regulated? Yeah we're never going to see eye to eye on this.

And you can take your ad hominem attacks and shove them up your ass you immature twat.

[RolandCuthbert]

That statement makes nonsense. I know of no phone company that censors phone calls. Do you even know what you are speaking of? Are you talking about the regulations cell phone makers must meet for the creation of a cell phone? Did you know you don't have to use a cell phone to receive phone calls?

I use a company called 8x8. I don't have to have a phone. I can use a laptop, a tablet, or my desktop. It is great, because I can be overseas and all I have to do is download the software and I have access to my phone number as long as I have internet.

That's what I mean by capitalism. ATT, Verizon, etc. will be out of business if they do not adapt.

If you don't like how I talk to you, block me.

I don't give a fuck. I am not going to sit around and watch you turds shit on my constitutional rights simply because you want to build a totalitarian state. You can move to fucking Russia. There everyone is told what they can and cannot say.

[Snsl153]

"Yes freaks. Because what you advocate for is socialism." - Roland
Er... no. I'm not a socialist. Whatever gave you that idea? I despise socialism, socialism does not work.

[Juxtapose]

Haha oh no you're too crazy and funny to block. But talk shit to me and I will clap back 👋

[RolandCuthbert]

@Snsl153 I am going to do myself a favor and insult you in the worst way possible. I won't block you. I won't censor one post you make to me.

I am just going to ignore you.

:D

[RolandCuthbert]

You do do a good whine.

:D

[Sixgunsound]

As a librarian I think anyone who advocates censorship restrictions on speech is either naive enough, a fool or something a lot less charitable. Parents have a responsibility to control what their students have access to, but if they choose poorly that isn’t school or society’s fault. What about parents from cultures which promote honor killings who don’t think their daughters need to learn how to use a condom? What about parents of any fundamentalist religion who don’t think their kids need to know there is a wider world out there. What about parents who only teach their students one point of view on an issue? Most of you know what my viewpoints are politically, but I’ll check any book out to any student because unlike the fragile snowflakes of the world my views have withstood challenges and come out the other side intact. I don’t have to destroy competing ideas to have a chance at being the last one standing.

[Chazmatazz269]

False. I disagree. The same way we generally agree that police should be held to a higher standard because of their position of authority and service, the media should be held to a higher standard. News organizations deliberately publishing lies, half-truths, and misinformation should be held criminally liable. So should social media platforms manipulating headlines and timelines in order to influence sociopolitical narratives. The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press in order to ensure truth can’t be concealed by a tyrannical government. When the media feeds into the tyranny of the government, we CANNOT rely on them as a function of our liberties!

[Juxtapose]

I would treat news networks such as CNN as not the press but as a propaganda outlet for the government. The true press is us the people.

[exitseven]

Obama should practice what he preaches.

Dr. Ronny Jackson commented that Biden shoild have to take the same mental acuuity test that everyone wanted Trump to take.

Obama was 9incenced that somebody would suggest that a democrat should be jeld to the same standard as a Republican. He sent Dr Jackson this email

"That's why I have to express my disappointment at the cheap shot you took at Joe Biden via Twitter. It was unprofessional and beneath the office that you once held. It was also disrespectful to me and the many friends you had in our administration. You were the personal physician to the President of the United States as well as an admiral in the U. S. Navy. I expect better, and I hope upon reflection that you will expect more of yourself in the future."

[SoftCliff]

Yes, with a caveat. A distinction between freedom of expression and incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. Speech that creates an immediate risk of harm to another person, isn't free speech

[crmoore]

Couldn't abolishing discrimination inhibit expression of scientific or statistical/mathematical truths? Like when studying the affects that different cultures/nationalities has on people? Or certain biological truths like how on average Asians have more brain mass?

[MTC29]

I'm a grown man and can judge for myself what is acceptable for reading or viewing. If I'm offended, I will close the book or turn the channel.

[Juxtapose]

EXACTLY!

[trumpets310]

I think it's complicated. But for sure the government of a free society has no right censoring anything. It can be ok in some cases when it's a different group, such as a company or the owner of an establishment censoring speech. An example would be video game companies censoring communication on their platforms to help protect children and other people from bullying and stuff. That's a good use case

[Juxtapose]

Frankly I don't think businesses should be allowed to do that.

[trumpets310]

What about Nintendo or something censoring language in online chat to protect kids?

[Danny_dan92]

Censorship should be outright banned. It goes against the constitution. Regardless of what side or affiliation you have you should be allowed to freely speak your mind, what people need to learn how to do though. Is not take everything that everyone says too personally because not everything everyone says is fact.

[Adam1978]

It's really more about how much space we give them. A free society does not say that everyone opinions should reach everyone else. Internet is promoting the craziest and weirdest today and that is bad. Censorship isn't the solution, you need to weight the algorithm to counter this behavior.

[Juxtapose]

Adults should be free to make their own choices. If we can't trust adults to do their own research then the country is doomed anyway.

[Adam1978]

Adults don't have time to research every topic and issue that comes their way. There must not only be trust in the system and people who check the facts do so for everyone. And aslong as there is enough people who actually check a topic, false information should be detected without millions needing to check every fact.

[Juxtapose]

It should be pretty obvious now that these fact checkers are full of shit and it is every adult's responsibility to thoroughly research every issue they even casually plan to get involved in.

[Adam1978]

Well we don't get involved in most issues but they still affect our lives. That's how corruption is done in small steps so no one will react drastically on the change until its to late. You should certainly have a keen eye on everything that is very important to you. But that is what also causes corruption only the involved gains on the deals, the rest is left out and losing.

[normalice]

I'd like to say it has no place but unfortunately the definition of censorship has been stretched, by scammers, to include "scammers are entitled to any audience anyone else has the means to provide."

Like, I can't say that people should give me money and expect you to amplify that message, saying that if you refuse then you are censoring me. But thats exactly what right wing scammers do and people believe them.

[Juxtapose]

The point is that digital spaces are the new public square and should be made into public utilities like telecommunication companies. Your phone calls can't be censored right?

[normalice]

You can have your phone service cancelled, yes. It isn't something that can reach a mass audience so people generally don't but phone scammers get shut down from time to time.

[Juxtapose]

Not for offending sjws man.

[normalice]

If you "offend sjws" while trying to scam someone, then yes.

And of course scammers will then try to claim they were silenced for the offense, rather than because they were scamming people. That is, indeed, "the scam" 😅

[Juxtapose]

Business is an entirely different thing from free speech. As soon as business gets involved a ton of regulation should kick in immediately.

[normalice]

How do you make the distinction between a business and a scam? Not all scams are for money. And whatever general distinction you come up with the scammers will find the loopholes they need to declare themselves a legitimate business. Having fully dedicated themselves to earning nothing, they have all the time in the world to do nothing but figure that out, after all.

[Juxtapose]

They declare themselves a business, they are regulated immediately.

[Juxtapose]

Laws aren't perfect though ofc.

If I really wanted to I could get away with murder.

[normalice]

Cool. Though, after rereading everything, I'm not sure what that has to do anything I wrote.

[DoctorSex]

Sometimes the right thing to do, suddenly becomes the wrong thing depending on the climate. You can plan to wear a shirt, but then the heaven's open up ☔

A lot of philosophies we follow we could Rethink as we grow deeper and deeper into decadence.

Kind regards,

DoctorSex

[Juxtapose]

That was saying a lot without saying much at all. Just some vague hypothetical of the future being different. Well I know what the present is now and I know what is going on now is unacceptable and something are enlightenment age liberal founding fathers would not approve of.

[Juxtapose]

*our

[Queeninmydreams]

Speech without thought is meaningless

Thought without speech is tyranny

[Juxtapose]

Yessss thank you!

[Blomman]

Censorship it's the opposite of being free so the question sort of answer itself :)
Sadly a lot of people don't grasp that these days.

[Juxtapose]

Succinct and well said, thank you!

[Snsl153]

Agree, and that's probably the only sensible thing Barack Obama ever said during his entire two terms as president.

[Lionman95]

I think it depends on your definition because full transparency would lead into anarchy and would destroy every form of government. It should be the goal to avoid censorship but it can´t be achieved on an absolute level.

[Juxtapose]

I simply think the people should not be censored by the government or any business. The digital world is now the new public square and should be treated as a public utility just like telecommunication companies. Your phone calls can't be censored after all.

[Exterminatore]

I’m mostly ok with free speech but not totally.


Take for example communism. It’s doctrines are incompatible with the Constitution. Should we be allowed to endorse this? To tell others it’s “merits” in order to win them over?


I know many will disagree. I don’t think certain things should be allowed to be said.


Take note the liberals in this country take full advantage of our freedoms to use them against us.

[RealMarek]

This. The problem is that once the Rousseauean conception of liberty prevailed over English liberalism, the only direction a society can move is to the left. Leftists don’t play by the same rules as classical liberals (what we csll conservatives in the US). Should we allow schools to promote Marxist and intersectional ideology? Certainly not with public funding and perhaps not at all.

[Juxtapose]

Well schools should not be allowed to promote certain things but to forbid the public from saying what they want so long as it is not a threat or whatnot is antithetical towards free speech. If neo-nazis and the KKK can speak then so can wannabe Soviets.

[Exterminatore]

@Juxtapose.

I get your point but if we allow enough to continually introduce ideas into society that are not compatible with our system of government, and we allow them to say this often, and repeat in every form of media: news, tv, papers, books, songs, movies etc. We are inviting the end. Note how the left took full advantage of free speech and now what have as a result. They’re destroying us from within. That is their goal.

[RobT312]

Freedom of speech. It’s not perfect as it is capable of causing conflict, but is better than the alternative

[Plinko]

If there are repercussions for your speech, then your speech isn't free.

[Avicenna]

That’s completely accurate. With censorship, abuses and corruption get covered up.

[fonduegirl]

Yes, I feel the same about banning certain literature books

[libsaretards]

Censorship has no place in the world period.

[Red-Blaze]

Yes, beside self censorship that is needed for some that lack it

[Juxtapose]

Why?

[Red-Blaze]

Because not everything need to be said
And not in every place
All saying have there time and place

[Juxtapose]

Well how about I say whatever the fuck I want and if people don't like it they can suck my dick?

[Red-Blaze]

@Juxtapose then you most likely find your self alone or in an echo chamber if anyone stay around

If that's good for you, you do you

And I am sure they can suck your dick regardless but likely will not want to :)

[Juxtapose]

I actually have friends with diverse opinions and some of them want to suck my dick xD

[Red-Blaze]

So guess you do apply self censorship

And just in case you miss understand it, it means "Feel the room" and care for it

[Red-Blaze]

I can't recall the word for it in English

[Juxtapose]

Not really, my friends understand I am autistic and speak without many filters.

Obviously if I see a female friend and I notice she has good assets am I going to tell her she has nice tits out of the blue? Of course not.

[Red-Blaze]

You say obviously
So again you do have self censorship
And not everyone have that

[KrakenAttackin]

But yet we see people, shows, and concepts being "cancelled" on a regular basis.

[Exterminatore]

It’s ok. I canceled liberalism. At least in my house.

[KrakenAttackin]

@Exterminatore Every home needs to do this

[Exterminatore]

Indeed. ASAP!

[Snakeyes7]

How hilarious to be hearing this from Obama of all people.

[EarthRealm]

Emotional people should be censored 24/7 and not taken seriously/Oppressed.
Logical people should be the only one without getting Oppressed/censored.

[EarthRealm]

Emotional 😭 people are the root of all Evil.

[Googlemyahoo]

Too generic. Whats being censored? Not everyone has the same standards.

[Juxtapose]

Literally anything.

[Googlemyahoo]

Well liberals tend to be the biggest fascists of them all wanting to control and silence any opinion they don’t approve. So yea stop liberal censorship

[Juxtapose]

I don't want any censorship.

[Spiritofn]

*Choice of censorship* if you are restricting the ability to tune out the world you really aren’t free now are you same goes 4 the other end.

[Jltakk]

no, in a truly free society, censorship has no place.

[OddBeMe]

Yes, but censorship isn't necessarily consequences for what you said. There will always be consequences.

[Juxtapose]

[Juxtapose]

Suppression or deletion of anything objectionable is censorship.

Trying to intimidate others into not saying something such as a racial epithet through threats of violence or threatening their livelihood is suppression.

[OddBeMe]

Thanks wiki. But in our usage, its from an authority. I can decide to not be your friend if you say “Trump 2024”. Thats not censoring you.

But i wouldn't do that. :)

[Juxtapose]

Well you not being my friend is not suppressing me. Usually when people say "consequences" in this context they refer to threats of physical violence or getting your employer to let you go and thus endangering you since Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

I wouldn't do that to you either, it's awfully trite and borish to exist in an echo chamber.

[Juxtapose]

If I vote this time around it'll be third party. But I'll tell you what, if Trump actually pardoned Julian Assange I would have voted for him in a heartbeat. That was my litmus test to see if he was legit or just another tool the establishment that has gone a little rogue.

[Juxtapose]

*of the establishment

[OddBeMe]

I did like that Obama pardoned chelsea manning.

And there is troubling rape allegations against assange.

[Juxtapose]

Allegations don't mean much, innocent until proven guilty right?

[Juxtapose]

Yeah Obama doing that is surprising considering some of the things he did.

[TallAnon]

Yes, but it's not an excuse to be racist, homophobic, etc.

[Juxtapose]

Actually it is. I can go around on the street and say whatever slur I want and it is not illegal.

[Juxtapose]

Free speech is there explicitly to protect unpopular speech.

[DeltaCharlieEcho]

Bad poll. No, censorship does not have a place in a free society.

[Juxtapose]

It's easy to understand if you have a basic command of the English language.

[DeltaCharlieEcho]

It would be easier to justify your reply if the post hadn’t included a double negative.

[Juxtapose]

It's a pretty simple fucking question dude you're asinine.

[DeltaCharlieEcho]

Shut the fuck up mongaloid

[Juxtapose]

[Justneedtokno]

Yes it does we still have impressionable children. Granted they can get information anywhere but let them be children as much as possible no care

[Juxtapose]

That is not a price I am willing to pay. It is the parent's job to police what the kids watch, not these rating agencies.

[Justneedtokno]

That’s the point. I guess I think the old ways were the whole play a pt taking care of a child innocents. That’s how I grew. People knew my mother father throwing up when I walk home I was never alone bothering me a neighbor would step up.

I think it’s too much access to a bunch of things nowadays as well. Sometimes you have to disconnect

[Juxtapose]

I had a lot of time unsupervised growing up because I was raised by a single mom. I would have hated to be watched so carefully, I wanted to do my own thing and be my own person.

I never looked at porn until I was 17 by the way.

[Juxtapose]

But these days with the internet being so ubiquitous parents have to be very vigilant if they don't want their kids to see certain things. Frankly the easiest way to prevent children from seeing things they shouldn't see is to forbid them from accessing the internet until they are old enough for you.

[Juxtapose]

But even with parental supervision there are going to be times where your kid is around other kids and then they will offer them drugs and whatnot. You can't watch the kid or censor them into obedience, you have to instill in them self-discipline.

[Juxtapose]

As @Oigit said too..

"In general kids are a hell of a lot smarter then most people give them credit for. So the best policy is to have honest conversations with them about a given topic or issue. Because they probably already know something about it and are actively talking/thinking about it. Also when you push to protect them from everything and avoid talking about hard topics, you leave them ill-equipped deal with life. That is especially true for life as fully functional independent adult. So pushing for censorship for the sake of kids and people a over protective parent only ensures children will never be a fully functional independent adult."

[Justneedtokno]

Well that’s the thing you asked if it was necessary I still think it is necessary. Growing up I had her my own set of problems but I was definitely sheltered and the area wish I lived it wasn’t always that great but my area did their best. I think the extra supervision was necessary and it is still quite relevant to this day I make it a point to know my neighbors because you never know. You see the stories I never knew they were killer or whatever. And it is up to the parents to teach their children how to avoid certain situations

[Lookingforthetruth]

Just lol at obama saying that when he kills people who tried to out him as a gay man.

[Libertycityguy]

there needs to be some censorship of free speech... like hate speech for example or the stuff involving children.

[Snsl153]

What, exactly, is "hate speech"? Define it for me.

[Libertycityguy]

Speech involving racial or gender slurs. They say those things cause no one pays attention to them

[joeldalton]

Correct. A lesson lost on mods of this site

[NishantPu]

If there can be censorship in our house. Why it can't be in whole country.

[Juxtapose]

This isn't communist China, go live there if you like censorship.

[NishantPu]

What make you think i live in your country. Don't be arrogant.
This isn't a feedback in your school.
If you ask for an opinion be ready for one.

[Juxtapose]

No I'm serious, get out of whatever country you are in and go to communist China because whatever country you are in you are poisoning.

I'm not going to apologize for telling you exactly how I feel. Yes I asked for your opinion but what did you expect? For me to powder your ass and tell you good job? For me not to challenge you?

[Juxtapose]

lol your profile says you're from America so you really have no reason to complain now. If you don't want people to think you're American then change it.

[NishantPu]

Twitter ban Trump a sitting president. You guys better don't talk about free speech or censorship.
A society should have freedom as well as some restriction.

[Juxtapose]

Why do you think I'm making this question? I want the first Amendment to be expanded, I don't think censorship should exist. Only something like a direct threat to a person or whatnot should be banned.

[NishantPu]

See you are talking about restrictions. Isn't it censorship? No Freedom is absolute.
Now read my first comment. I compare house with a country. Different family have different way of living. Some are okay with having drinks together. Some won't even allow to drink it in bar.
Things is you can't discuss this topic. Unless you state the nature of things you want to have a censorship free.

[NishantPu]

Next time try to be polite When you ask a question.

[CharlieWood]

It depends on the setting.

[Juxtapose]

How so?

[CharlieWood]

Etiquette. As a DJ I don’t usually play uncensored music unless asked.

[Fuentes]

Commies will always try and censor you

[TheSpaceGnome]

Yes.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yes...

[BoobMan]

Correct!

[driven159]

Then it's not free