Should we have freedom of speech or censorship on certain topics - With Norbert the tiger as a cohost

[A Real Munson]

I’m just gonna be pedantic here and note that freedom of expression doesn’t imply you can make other people do business with you. It doesn’t imply several things that piss you guys off, ie it doesn’t imply a right to a platform either.

I live in the United States. We don't have freedom of expression. We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We don't have freedom of association in this country and there are numerous laws which require that private entities accept others' business whether they want to or not; for instance, the Civil Rights Act.

You're using "i.e.," incorrectly. You should be using "e.g.," instead. To your point about an implied right to a platform, the Communications Decency Act, can reasonably be argued to require a degree of impartiality in whom they provide a platform to. Whether or not you agree with that argument, modifying that law has been discussed extensively in recent years. Also, there is an overriding public interest in the govermment not allowing private companies to ratfuck our infrastructure just so they can regulate wrong think.

When do we have real freedom? Is it when the government isn't allowed to stop tech companies from silencing adversaries of their political interests?

 

[AgendaPoster]

I live in the United States. We don't have freedom of expression. We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We don't have freedom of association in this country and there are numerous laws which require that private entities accept others' business whether they want to or not; for instance, the Civil Rights Act.

You're using "i.e.," incorrectly. You should be using "e.g.," instead. To your point about an implied right to a platform, the Communications Decency Act, can reasonably be argued to require a degree of impartiality in whom they provide a platform to. Whether or not you agree with that argument, modifying that law has been discussed extensively in recent years. Also, there is an overriding public interest in the govermment not allowing private companies to ratfuck our infrastructure just so they can regulate wrong think.

When do we have real freedom? Is it when the government isn't allowed to stop tech companies from silencing adversaries of their political interests?

Progressives are OK with limiting the rights rightoids (allegedly) have, if it's for a "good" purpose, i.e. helping dindus "integrate".
This is why you should always make sure that progressives are forced to work with dindus and live with dindus too.

 

[Stan]

I live in the United States. We don't have freedom of expression. We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I use the term “freedom of expression” precisely because it’s more general, and applicable to the non-US Britbongs and Canucks and EU citizens. Yeah, we do have all those freedoms, and they’re all interconnected with one another. If we didn’t have freedom of religion, but instead mandated Sharia law, you don’t have freedom of the press, either.

We don't have freedom of association in this country and there are numerous laws which require that private entities accept others' business whether they want to or not; for instance, the Civil Rights Act.

Protected classes are pretty limited in what is protected, and those classes are carve outs and exceptions to the rule. Mostly, if you don’t meet the definition of one of the groups on a list of protected classes, you’re not protected. At-will employment is a fine example: my employer can fire me for wearing green pants if they feel like it, but they’d be risking a wrongful termination suit if they fired me on some protected group criterion (age, sex, race, marital status, military deployment, fired me because I needed time off to vote, disability that could be reasonably accommodated, not sure if sexual orientation or gender id counts.) even if I’m part of one or more of those protected groups an employer can still fire me for wearing green pants, and it’s up to the employee to prove that they were actually fired for one of the no-no reasons.

Afaik, (and I’m not a lawyer), kiwifarmers are not a protected class and Kiwi farming isn’t a protected activity.

 

[A Real Munson]

If we didn’t have freedom of religion, but instead mandated Sharia law, you don’t have freedom of the press, either.

If we had mandated Sharia Law, we would not be America. Freedom of Religion was instantiated to protect against sectarian divisions among Christians. This was done particularly in light of the Protestant reformation and the back and forth persecution happening to Protestants, by Protestants, and between Protestants. Much of this made it's way to the 13 colonies. The purpose of Freedom of Religion wasn't to protect the right of Berbers to rape white women.

Protected classes are pretty limited in what is protected, and those classes are carve outs and exceptions to the rule. Mostly, if you don’t meet the definition of one of the groups on a list of protected classes, you’re not protected. At-will employment is a fine example

I have to disagree. They are limited, but they're very broad reaching, and the onus isn't always on the accuser. We're not allowed to do competency testing as a condition for employment because it has a disproportionate impact on blacks. The idea that you can fire the only black guy in your office for wearing green pants, and that the onus is then on him to prove it was for a protected characteristic, is wishful thinking.

These carve outs prevent freedom of association in nearly every aspect of life, new tortured logic is used to expand their application (reading transgenderism into title IX) or to move them to work in only one direction(blacks having black-only spaces). Aside from that, it doesn't change the fact this puts huge holes in our ostensible freedom of association; a freedom you're relying on to justify viewpoint discrimination (or, at least tolerating it) by the managers of our infrastructure (e.g., banks, ISPs, tech and other services).

It's not about whether we should have censorship. We do have censorship, and we will never be completely rid of it. The better question is: whose censorship, and how much of it, should we tolerate?

 

[i440BX]

It's not about whether we should have censorship. We do have censorship, and we will never be completely rid of it. The better question is: whose censorship, and how much of it, should we tolerate?

This is what I tried to explain in my message.

Goverment/Corporation/Soycieties are snowflakes and get triggered by even some jokes like a person training his dog to make a Hitler salute. I am sure he wasnt a Neo-nazi wishing the death if Jews. He was edgy. This type if censorhip must discontinue.

Most troubling thing is the arrest of people in UK for example for bogus accusations of transphobia. I AM ARRESTED FOR POLITELY SAYING YOU ARE BIOLOGICALLY MALE.

IT IS CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE IN SOCIAL MEDIA TO DISAGREE WITH T movement. You are/were censored for moderate takes like ballot voting is suspectible to manipulation, opposing children to get hrt, believing it is plausible a lab accident could have happened in Wuhan. I am considered dangerous individual when I oppose measures like disinformation arbiters at UN/WEF.

Despite being polite person, not wishing to spread hate, I will still get censored, ostracizized for holding these views.

Another point I believe it is fucked is the Copyright law made in favour of corporations.

Corporations and Goverment have mended toghether to become a censorhip of common sense and beauty. It is neither Communism, nor Fascism. I think it is a society full of INSANE PEOPLE.

Mental disorders, depression, anxiety, suicides, addictions, loneliness, rejection of long respected values tested in time are on the rise in the Rich world.

Fuck this entire world. I wish I could save stuff made till 2020s from corruption. Piracy seems a good tool here.

 

[Felis Meanis]

The only valid exception is censorship of content that harms individuals.

Also:

Unfortunately, this is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Stan]

If we had mandated Sharia Law, we would not be America. Freedom of Religion was instantiated to protect against sectarian divisions among Christians. This was done particularly in light of the Protestant reformation and the back and forth persecution happening to Protestants, by Protestants, and between Protestants. Much of this made it's way to the 13 colonies. The purpose of Freedom of Religion wasn't to protect the right of Berbers to rape white women.

I might have expressed it kind of poorly but I think we are agreeing on this bit. What I’m trying to say is that a society that doesn’t permit freedom of religion is going to restrict freedom of expression in various ways by restricting how people can worship. If the press isn’t free to publish what it wants to say, then the people are deprived of access to information and their speech is consequently, not free.

What you have to say about protected classes is interesting, and I can agree that the concept is ripe for abuse but that some degree of protection is probably necessary to protect freedom of speech. (If your employer can fire you on the basis of religion, then your freedom of speech is being restricted.)

Afaik - and I’m no expert - political views have never been considered a protected class. I can imagine extreme cases where that kind of censorship is fair; and many where it would not be fair.

One bright spot in this issue, at least as it pertains to finance, is that DeFi and crypto basically end run the problem of some bank managers deciding they don’t want your money. So that specific issue is got leapfrogged, and now the terrorists/freedom fighters can send and receive money wherever they want, for better or worse.

 

[Lowlife Adventures]

Transgender bathroom rights MIGHT be misused, so we MUST ban it.

I get what you're saying but I'm going to nitpick this one because I just don't like trannies that much. Not every situation where banning something because it might be misused is the same. Other things have to be weighed like how likely it is to be misused, and how bad the situation would be if the thing does get misused. That's one way that the two situations (trans bathrooms and freedom of speech) aren't similar. Under freedom of speech, there are several steps between someone "misusing" it to express a shitty idea and the idea being widely accepted. Under open bathrooms, the moment it does get misused (ex. rape), someone has already been physically victimized.

Are there also alternative ways to do something? Banning transgenders from female bathrooms isn't as bad because it's not like they have no bathrooms to go to at all. They can still go to the male or gender neutral bathrooms. If you ban freedom of speech, what alternative is there for someone who wants to express an idea that isn't allowed?

I think I'd also take issue with the idea that censorship of fag/troon degeneracy is the only and best way to deal with it. Maybe I'm being idealistic, but there are ways to counteract degeneracy under freedom of speech.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

I support whatever maximizes the most suffering for everyone involved

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

I am against censorship of all types of opinions. It empowers the worst and most mediocre peopke to rule over us. On the other hand I hate porno and want it all banned and destroyed. I guess we all have our blind spots, or maybe I am just a hypocrite.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Instead of autistically slap-fighting over freedom of speech or censorship, can we agree on the freedom of mockery?

If we allow mockery and ridicule, a lot of the worlds problems go away.

 

[Gremperor]

Which of these is more sympathetic:
1. I have a right to be a seething cunt to people online because I want to be
2. I have a right to debate the merits of political ideas that the right and left wing party organs of my country would prefer to suppress by banning, deleting content etc.

I get that if we have 2, 1 will follow, but campaigning for free speech on the merits of making amhole jokes about Kevin Gibes isn’t really bringing out your best compared to (example) a discussion on why bad GRS outcomes are getting censored and bullied out of Reddit, where many trannies get their GRS information. It makes this community hard to love and hard to defend tbh.

Marge it's obvious to even the most autistic retards on this site that you're only making these arguments because the people mocking you got under your skin but you don't have the ability to just censor them for it.

Also...

Which of these is more sympathetic:

Unironically 1.

 

[Otterly]

So if censorship can let bad ideas "succeed", why not use it to let good ideas succeed?

Because who dictates what’s good? If I’m dictating what’s good then ok. If my enemies are then not

Censorship is great unless it happens to me and then it’s bad” very coherent and logical well done

No it is perfectly logical, that’s what I’m saying in the previous post. You either
1. have free speech as an absolute and anything goes
2. Have free right to expression with a few very well agreed on exceptions (like csam)
3. Have censorship
If you have censorship who gets to dictate what’s right and wrong? It comes down to being a weapon,
In the USa 2 and 3 are battling it out. Everyone is trying to censor their enemies becasue in today’s world information is such a powerful force. I believe in free expression and I would like a world where we are able to have that. Anyone who tries to take away MY right to it is my enemy. And I will not prevent people from censoring my enemies either.
I’d also like peace on earth but I’ll fight anyone who tries to harm me. Wanting a thing as an ideal, and being willing to fight dirty to have it IS a logical position. I can assure you that the progs and the commies trying to destroy the west are busy censoring stuff all over the place.
@Bog-standard Poster mockery is the most powerful weapon against all forms of fundamentalism.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Absolutely censorship should be applied to all members of the communist class libertarians socialists anti Christian weirdos all Muslims all Jews in the French

and people who hold ideologies that are antithetical to the basic concepts of human liberty should be immediately put at the end of a firing squad this includes communists all forms of leftism all forms of socialism yes and even libertarians libertarians are just another form of leftism with extra steps same thing about all forms of Marxism I don't care what you call it and transgenderism and homosexual acceptance because these things can only be tolerated in a society that has censorship because people are disgusted

and the fact of the matter is anybody who holds anti Christian beliefs in the United States of America should be immediately thrown into a wood chipper you can't have liberty if you don't have a Christian moral society Adams believed that and he was correct our laws were meant for Christian people not to apply to Jews Muslims Hindus and Buddhists an atheist freakazoids

I’m just gonna be pedantic here and note that freedom of expression doesn’t imply you can make other people do business with you. It doesn’t imply several things that piss you guys off, ie it doesn’t imply a right to a platform either.
You see guys when every single media company collaborates to elect a certain candidate and the FBI and CIA also collaborate with tech platforms and Joe Biden loses lawsuits that he was using the DOJ to go after his political opponents by censoring the speech on tech platforms that's not censorship because it's a private company it may be being encouraged by the government to censor its political opponents but that's not said ship because it's a private company


it's like people who think all of these NGO's that take 10s of millions of dollars from the United States government on an extension of the US security state
bellingcat
US endowment for democracy
the UN
the ADL which rocks directly with the FBI
the SPLC which also works with the FBI
but you see guys this is not the government censoring you because all they're doing is giving all of these universities and other government groups millions of dollars to write up reports that later get to be used to censor your freedom of speech you see because they gave that money to a third party and that third party got you censored it is no longer the government journalist who works at New York magazine
all journalists should be slowly fed through a wood chipper feet first

freedom of the press means freedom of the printing press so you should not be allowed to publish your articles on the Internet that doesn't sound like a printing press so go start using an old timey printing press and print out your papers that way if not I have every right to censor you

 

[Stan]

Because who dictates what’s good? If I’m dictating what’s good then ok. If my enemies are then not

No it is perfectly logical, that’s what I’m saying in the previous post. You either
1. have free speech as an absolute and anything goes
2. Have free right to expression with a few very well agreed on exceptions (like csam)
3. Have censorship
If you have censorship who gets to dictate what’s right and wrong? It comes down to being a weapon,
In the USa 2 and 3 are battling it out. Everyone is trying to censor their enemies becasue in today’s world information is such a powerful force. I believe in free expression and I would like a world where we are able to have that. Anyone who tries to take away MY right to it is my enemy. And I will not prevent people from censoring my enemies either.
I’d also like peace on earth but I’ll fight anyone who tries to harm me. Wanting a thing as an ideal, and being willing to fight dirty to have it IS a logical position. I can assure you that the progs and the commies trying to destroy the west are busy censoring stuff all over the place.
@Bog-standard Poster mockery is the most powerful weapon against all forms of fundamentalism.

It seems obvious to me that you have to choose the middle option. People’s rights can be regulated without being infringed upon, and letting people exercise a right with no regulation would be a fucking nightmare. Should freedom of religion imply a right to practice Aztec human sacrifice? No way! Should freedom of the press imply a right to knowingly publish defamatory stories? It doesn't, they can eat huge fines and penalties for doing that (which is why you see the word “allegedly” everywhere in crime stories; innocent until proven guilty.) You mention CSAM, that’s one obvious exception where speech/expression ought to be regulated. I’d also add the “crying fire in a crowded theater” example and direct threat of violence to that pile.

What’s the exact line to be drawn? That’s a question for the legal system imo, that’s how a functional society works, anyway.

And if you think about it, freedom is speech is probably more powerful before than it ever has been. The Internet democratized publishing so even hacks like me can write things and have them reach a much wider audience around the world. Back in the day, one had to go through commercial publishers, formal news agencies, or call into radio stations to get your voice heard, and they always had the option of telling you to take your book/letter to the editor/call and shove it. So rather than slouching towards a world of censorship I am optimistic things will continue to improve
After all, even the very very restricted countries are able to get some media in. Dictators can’t keep a hermetic seal on their nations; Putin probably can’t stop people from watching The Death of Stalin at home if they really want to, Kim can’t wholly prevent the flow of South Korean TV shows preloaded on flash keys into Pyongyang (it is still super dangerous though, and if you get caught… to the camps with ya.)

PS i want to ask you guys about a particular example, plz let me know what you think:

It’s fairly agreed upon here at Kiwifarms that it’s evil for VOs in Indonesia to torture monkeys to death on stream for tips. How do you all feel about this? Is this an act of speech you guys would want to see protected? If so, what to do about this and other evils (CSAM, etc.)

 

[Otterly]

What’s the exact line to be drawn?

The usual response is that freedom ends where it impinges on others freedom and ‘wholeness’ (probably the wrong word but I mean having your person and possessions and rights intact. )
Freedom of speech does not include the person creating a loss to another - all crime really is theft if you think about it. If you abuse a child you deprive them of bodily safety. If you directly say ‘hey guys let’s go kill person x who lives at x street xville on Wednesday at this time’ you create a threat to life. We already have laws to deal with all those things. Defamation needs loss too I think (?) that’s the line as it’s been drawn for a long time. Your freedoms end where mine are.

PS i want to ask you guys about a particular example, plz let me know what you think:

It’s fairly agreed upon here at Kiwifarms that it’s evil for VOs in Indonesia to torture monkeys to death on stream for tips. How do you all feel about this? Is this an act of speech you guys would want to see protected? If so, what to do about this and other evils (CSAM, etc.)

It’s not an act of speech no. It’s a physical act which directly contravenes existing laws / morality on animal cruelty. Csam directly contravenes existing laws on abuse of children. It also directly fuels the abusers desire to do more. It creates the monetary market and the ‘fuel the fetish’ market. Which is why drawn csam is also bad. It’s like chucking fuel on a fire and saying that well it’s not burning that other fuel. Sure but the fire gets bigger then it does burn the other fuel.
There’s no question of a total free for all - we live in a finite system with finite space for us all. Only a population of one can have total free rein. The question is where you draw the line and that’s always been demonstrable loss to others. Property, safety, rights etc.
What’s changed recently is people trying to redefine what harm actually is. Harm is not having your feelings hurt, no matter what troons want. It’s not being disagreed with, or offended, or upset. Those campaigns to get the idea of offense or upset as a genuine harm are what’s fuelling stuff like hate speech laws which do restrict freedom of speech

 

[sallowhal]

in the world we live in now, it's best to have free speech. i think the internet is the genie that can't be put back into the bottle. we live in an age that anyone can access any information they want to.

i think the wide range of information available makes it hard for a lot of people to pay attention, in some ways. if all you care about is cat videos and not politics, you're going to ignore the ever present stream of global news and happenings.

attempting to censor in this environment just draws attention to the stuff you're trying to censor. china has an entire state apparatus attempting to control the flow of information and it fails pretty miserably, for example. which i think they're starting to understand. much easier to just lock up dissidents for their speech than attempt to stop them from speaking.

 

[Dude Snakes]

OP is a fucking idiot.

 

[Teghern]

That's your brain on pop history, Look what Spain did in the Philippines and tried to do in Cambodia, or what Portugal and the Dutch were doing in the East Indies. Catholicism was a subversive influence in Japan. The Mongols are also a terrible example since literally every time they got a foothold in a nation, there were people out to befriend them, as it would have been in Japan.

EU3 has never led me wrong, EU4 maybe.

Emphasis on "tried" to, there is no none time travelling scenario where the European powers pull of an invasion of Japan during the Sengoku Period, none, nevermind the practicality concerns (the anglos gave up on it for a reason) we may as well be considering Prester John unironically and non-Ethiopianly.
It's important to highlight how everywhere the explorers brought the one true faith (tm) and misused it to their own devices for wordly pursuits how at every turn in response the Church sought to undermine these efforts, as previously I mentioned the deeds of the Jesuits in Paraguay, the legacy of men like the Protector of the Indians runs strong.
My point being here that @Norbert the Tiger is wrong by asserting that the Bakufu's stance against Christianity resulted in national salvation by way of destruction of a hostile force; the enemy in this context would be Moortuguese merchants not the brotherly friars, the dead as a result being Nipponese converts speaks to the true purpose of such actions; internal dominion against competition as opposed to deliverance from an external evil.

The Mongols are a great example because they're one of the few times an external power has tried to interfere in Japanese territorial integrity and show the direct result of that; unity. Because Japan at the time despite appearances was a nation with a civilisation and that's what those things do when confronted with hostile external force, all coming back to my original point about it being a politics things and therefore gay and not a "higher power" belief in rights issue.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

I see a lot of trite platitudes that are taken wholecloth from American civics class. Such good little boys and girls you all are.

It also doesn't matter if you 'totally grasp that transgenderism is insane,'. There are plenty of people who see absolutely no problem with it, exactly because discussion of it has been subject of censorship. Not everyone is as smart as you are.

That is precisely my point. The vision Mills and others had about the Marketplace of Ideas, that all people or even most people make reasoned decisions based on reason and logic has been proven false. It is not just a question of what bad ideas have gained prominence in "muh marketplace of ideas," one can really struggle to find when the best ideas--the best art, the best literature, the best music--actually prevails. For god's sake most Americans think race is just skin deep, even though looking at Bill Cosby's face for five seconds and comparing it to a European face proves that is not so.
And now a large contingent of the population think sex (or gender) can be changed by horrific Frankenstein "surgeries."
In that way I direct those interested to the ideas of Gregory Hood aka James Fitzpatrick, real name Kevin DeAnna. As he so correctly states, "democracy is rule by mass media, simple as." Many of his ideas are articulated in podcast:

The Antifascist State - American Renaissance

Gregory Hood and Paul Gottfried discuss the system's ruling ideology.

www.amren.com

At the end of the discussion of American History X this week, he talks about it again, that he thinks the Democrats are right in their perception that censoring ideas, preventing them from gaining a mainstream footing wins the day by that very act. In his view, the mass media is more important than the military, more important than almost anything. I would suggest finance may be more imporant as that is what has allowed nefarious elements like George Soros, Blackrock, etc to do what they do.

Germany. The clampdown on Weimar degeneracy helped delay fag/troon rights.

Correct

I actually have a pretty good idea of what you meant. You own a Nazi armband, and you’re also a bit cowardly to just own up to that instead of get all weaselly.

I know what you think you have a good idea what you think is true, and it is amusing to me. Consider that stating one "has an armband in my dresser" metaphorically is even more incendiary.

Logical fallacy: appeal to precedent.

Utterly moronic. That would render any analysis and review of human history to better understand human nature an "appeal to precedent."

I don’t think Nazi Germany lasted long enough for you to say that.

It did. Insidious elements in German society were expunged, with an incredibly strong political mandate behind it. And then everything fell apart.

You’re not debating the Jewish Liberal Media Cabal, you’re talking to me, an individual.

Oh so a debate or discussion. to whatever extent your tiresome, cliched boilerplate constitute a discussion, is not about the subject at hand, but the person one is "conversing with." Wrong, and jaw-droppingly stupid.

i think the internet is the genie that can't be put back into the bottle.

Oh? Tell that to Stefan Molyneux, or Jared Taylor and friends.

I will note again aside from many of my contentions not being refuted, this post by @trash cat has been scarcely addressed at all, which is particularly important in conjunction with Hood/DeAnna's ideas about how powerful mass media is.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/should...orship-on-certain-topics.189999/post-18238845

Even if I were to agree that free speech is an important, "inalienable right" as it pertains to individuals, these mass media conglomerates are an entirely different matter, and were not something that Mill et al could even conceive of, nor could they conceptualize the hypnotic effect of mass media, television, music, movies, etc.