Censorship is seldom the best idea

[Boss]

It's an interesting subject and one that often doesn't get much consideration. Censorship has been around for a long time. Webster's defines it as follows: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

We have to go back to 399 BC and the days of Socrates to find the origins of censorship. The State of Greece was attempting to censor his philosophical teachings and he defied them... they sentenced him to a hemlock cocktail. Later, his student, Plato, would advocate censorship and reject democracy. And then, Greek playwright Euripides (480–406 BC) defended the true liberty of freeborn men, including the right to speak freely.

So we've had this ongoing battle ever since. You would think this would be a particularly touchy subject for America since we're based on the concept of freedom and free speech but we find something interesting. Seems whenever you've become the indisputable champion of freedom and democracy, you can make all kinds of censorship decisions because you're a responsible censor, you see... like the Greek State was?

We've watched through the years as religious groups tried to censor pornography or the establishment tried to censor anti-establishment demonstrations. All based on perfectly reasonable and sound justifications. Censorship has always had sound and reasoned justification. No one ever wants to censor someone just to be mean. There is always some "valid" reason we've chosen to base our demands to censor on. But is it always the best idea?

We've had this ongoing debate for years about teaching creationism in school. That is censorship. Why would you not at least teach that some people believe in creationism? Why do we assume it's a good idea to censor this information as if the student isn't going to somehow discover it on their own? Education should be about learning everything, even the stuff we don't agree with and think we should censor.

Then we have this crazy debate over the rebel flag. We've got movements across the south, tearing down heritage and monuments on the basis of this insane attempt to censor a part of our history. Do people somehow believe that if we censor the flag, the horrors of slavery and racism go away? What IS the justification? Oh, it "offends some people!" ...well, didn't Socrates face the same situation?

And more closer to home... what about Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan? You don't think they offend people? What about Jeremiah Wright? There are a LOT of people who offend me but I understand they have the freedom of speech to say what they want without being censored. The rebel flag certainly doesn't represent all the awful and terrible things that it is charged with but even if it did... so what? Sometimes symbols can represent things we find offensive... why is that a big deal?

 

[B. Kidd]

Truth is treason in an empire of lies. Use this as a guage when it comes to censorship, in any society.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's an interesting subject and one that often doesn't get much consideration. Censorship has been around for a long time. Webster's defines it as follows: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

We have to go back to 399 BC and the days of Socrates to find the origins of censorship. The State of Greece was attempting to censor his philosophical teachings and he defied them... they sentenced him to a hemlock cocktail. Later, his student, Plato, would advocate censorship and reject democracy. And then, Greek playwright Euripides (480–406 BC) defended the true liberty of freeborn men, including the right to speak freely.

So we've had this ongoing battle ever since. You would think this would be a particularly touchy subject for America since we're based on the concept of freedom and free speech but we find something interesting. Seems whenever you've become the indisputable champion of freedom and democracy, you can make all kinds of censorship decisions because you're a responsible censor, you see... like the Greek State was?

We've watched through the years as religious groups tried to censor pornography or the establishment tried to censor anti-establishment demonstrations. All based on perfectly reasonable and sound justifications. Censorship has always had sound and reasoned justification. No one ever wants to censor someone just to be mean. There is always some "valid" reason we've chosen to base our demands to censor on. But is it always the best idea?

We've had this ongoing debate for years about teaching creationism in school. That is censorship. Why would you not at least teach that some people believe in creationism? Why do we assume it's a good idea to censor this information as if the student isn't going to somehow discover it on their own? Education should be about learning everything, even the stuff we don't agree with and think we should censor.

Then we have this crazy debate over the rebel flag. We've got movements across the south, tearing down heritage and monuments on the basis of this insane attempt to censor a part of our history. Do people somehow believe that if we censor the flag, the horrors of slavery and racism go away? What IS the justification? Oh, it "offends some people!" ...well, didn't Socrates face the same situation?

And more closer to home... what about Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan? You don't think they offend people? What about Jeremiah Wright? There are a LOT of people who offend me but I understand they have the freedom of speech to say what they want without being censored. The rebel flag certainly doesn't represent all the awful and terrible things that it is charged with but even if it did... so what? Sometimes symbols can represent things we find offensive... why is that a big deal?

Here's the thing... There's is no potential right for one to rightly use their speech, towards the injury of an innocent.

As a consequence, the use of the concept 'censor' is perfectly appropriate where speech serves to injure the innocent.

Where censorship injures the speaker's right to speak freely; meaning that the speaker is using their God-given right to speak of those things to which they are entitled to speak, such should be rejected.

Both circumstances injure the innocent.

The problem is how to know what speech is injurious and when censorship should be employed. And to know that, it is essential for those standing in judgment to be OBJECTIVE.

Therefore, we know that the Ideological Left is never able to accurately judge when such is appropriate. Just as they're incapable of seeing the injurious nature of the drivel they write; which should be censored by any culture which hopes to remain viable where it has Leftists among its general population.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"We've had this ongoing debate for years about teaching creationism in school. That is censorship. Why would you not at least teach that some people believe in creationism?"

Because it's un-Constitutional (See Edwards v. Aquillard)

At least you're consistent at being wrong, and consistent at being ignorant of the law.

Teaching 'creationism' in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, where the Constitution's prohibition does not manifest as 'censorship.'

'Then we have this crazy debate over the rebel flag. We've got movements across the south, tearing down heritage and monuments on the basis of this insane attempt to censor a part of our history. Do people somehow believe that if we censor the flag, the horrors of slavery and racism go away? What IS the justification? Oh, it "offends some people!" ...well, didn't Socrates face the same situation?'

Wrong again – your ignorance is truly amazing.

The 'confederate' flag or like symbols are government speech, where the removal or prohibition of such symbols on government buildings or property, such as license plates, is not 'censorship,' and perfectly Constitutional (See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans)

Moreover, private citizens remain at liberty to display the 'confederate' flag on private property absent any punitive measure by any government, demonstrating again that there is no 'censorship' with regard to the flag.

As a consequence of your ignorance the premise of your thread fails.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's an interesting subject and one that often doesn't get much consideration. Censorship has been around for a long time. Webster's defines it as follows: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

We have to go back to 399 BC and the days of Socrates to find the origins of censorship. The State of Greece was attempting to censor his philosophical teachings and he defied them... they sentenced him to a hemlock cocktail. Later, his student, Plato, would advocate censorship and reject democracy. And then, Greek playwright Euripides (480–406 BC) defended the true liberty of freeborn men, including the right to speak freely.

So we've had this ongoing battle ever since. You would think this would be a particularly touchy subject for America since we're based on the concept of freedom and free speech but we find something interesting. Seems whenever you've become the indisputable champion of freedom and democracy, you can make all kinds of censorship decisions because you're a responsible censor, you see... like the Greek State was?

We've watched through the years as religious groups tried to censor pornography or the establishment tried to censor anti-establishment demonstrations. All based on perfectly reasonable and sound justifications. Censorship has always had sound and reasoned justification. No one ever wants to censor someone just to be mean. There is always some "valid" reason we've chosen to base our demands to censor on. But is it always the best idea?

We've had this ongoing debate for years about teaching creationism in school. That is censorship. Why would you not at least teach that some people believe in creationism? Why do we assume it's a good idea to censor this information as if the student isn't going to somehow discover it on their own? Education should be about learning everything, even the stuff we don't agree with and think we should censor.

Then we have this crazy debate over the rebel flag. We've got movements across the south, tearing down heritage and monuments on the basis of this insane attempt to censor a part of our history. Do people somehow believe that if we censor the flag, the horrors of slavery and racism go away? What IS the justification? Oh, it "offends some people!" ...well, didn't Socrates face the same situation?

And more closer to home... what about Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan? You don't think they offend people? What about Jeremiah Wright? There are a LOT of people who offend me but I understand they have the freedom of speech to say what they want without being censored. The rebel flag certainly doesn't represent all the awful and terrible things that it is charged with but even if it did... so what? Sometimes symbols can represent things we find offensive... why is that a big deal?

Here's the thing... There's is no potential right for one to rightly use their speech, towards the injury of an innocent.

As a consequence, the use of the concept 'censor' is perfectly appropriate where speech serves to injure the innocent.

Where censorship injures the speaker's right to speak freely; meaning that the speaker is using their God-given right to speak of those things to which they are entitled to speak, such should be rejected.

Both circumstances injure the innocent.

The problem is how to know what speech is injurious and when censorship should be employed. And to know that, it is essential for those standing in judgment to be OBJECTIVE.

Therefore, we know that the Ideological Left is never able to accurately judge when such is appropriate. Just as they're incapable of seeing the injurious nature of the drivel they write; which should be censored by any culture which hopes to remain viable where it has Leftists among its general population.

And yet more ignorance from the ridiculous right.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

huh? please censor me

 

[Boss]

Here's the thing... There's is no potential right for one to rightly use their speech, towards the injury of an innocent.

Oh, I am not questioning the morality of why we make decisions to censor things. I full understand, as I said, we do not censor just to be mean or deny freedom. We always construct a legitimate reason to do it. Any censorship that has ever been done had some 'best intention' behind it.

Theories of intelligent design and creationism are part of the body of knowledge. They are the literal viewpoints of individuals expressing free speech. It can be debatable as to whether the theories are valid or scientifically supported but it is a prominent idea and we shouldn't censor it. The same for the flag, it's part of our history... in the body of knowledge... why are we censoring it?

Are we going to try and censor out everything that is politically incorrect? Program students to "group think" like something out of Orwell? Perhaps we'll one day have the technology to observe your thoughts, and we can apply censorship should you think 'wrongly' ?

 

[Boss]

Teaching 'creationism' in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, where the Constitution's prohibition does not manifest as 'censorship.'

Read the OP... Greek State vs. Socrates 399 BC.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here's the thing... There's is no potential right for one to rightly use their speech, towards the injury of an innocent.

Oh, I am not questioning the morality of why we make decisions to censor things. I full understand, as I said, we do not censor just to be mean or deny freedom. We always construct a legitimate reason to do it. Any censorship that has ever been done had some 'best intention' behind it.

Theories of intelligent design and creationism are part of the body of knowledge. They are the literal viewpoints of individuals expressing free speech. It can be debatable as to whether the theories are valid or scientifically supported but it is a prominent idea and we shouldn't censor it. The same for the flag, it's part of our history... in the body of knowledge... why are we censoring it?

Are we going to try and censor out everything that is politically incorrect? Program students to "group think" like something out of Orwell? Perhaps we'll one day have the technology to observe your thoughts, and we can apply censorship should you think 'wrongly' ?

It's a tough question.

But all things worth doing are tough. If they weren't the Left would be doing them.

The Left censors to stop truth. That they have a reason for it, on the stated basis describing 'good intentions', is irrelevant.

They make the claim on every one of their ludicrous points. From the murder of the pre-born, through the subsidizing of non-production, to the licensing of degeneracy, thus the rejection of God, in finality.

Each and every point advanced by the Ideological Left, without exception, is specifically designed to injure the American Culture. With the desire to censor God and God's law, being no exception.

When a body is infected with a virus, the medical practitioner does not seek to establish equilibrium with the infecting body, so that both the host and the parasitic virus can exist ... the medical practitioner seeks to destroy the virus, because there is no compromising with such. Its existence is lethal to the host.

In the US, our culture is not only infected with the Foreign Body of Left-think, it is quickly succumbing to such.

Therefore, we need to decide, do we concede to the virus... and die a pathetic puddle of sweat and puss? OR do we strip the culture of any sense that Left-think is an acceptable species of reasoning, culling from the cultural body, all examples of such and prohibiting any speech which reflects the panty-waist notions associated with such.

The United States: Does it Live or Die? That's all we're really discussing here.

Censor Political Correctness... remove Leftists from the general population and Live.

Or fail to do so, and Die?

It could not be more simple.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"We've had this ongoing debate for years about teaching creationism in school. That is censorship. Why would you not at least teach that some people believe in creationism?"

Because it's un-Constitutional (See Edwards v. Aquillard)

Ahh... LOL! A Leftist citing bad judicial decisions, expecting that Americans must snap to attention and salute.

There is nothing about recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering to God's law that equates to "THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: ESTABLISHING A RELIGION".

As God's law is objective, treats all individuals equally and sets NO INDIVIDUAL ABOVE OR BELOW ANOTHER.

The Ideological Left resents God, because God's existence means that THEY ARE NOT GOD... thus THEY are not entitled to set themselves above others.