Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
But this is still offtopic
The topic is, as Andres said, "Should obscene/etc words be bleeped".
No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate.But this is still offtopic
The topic is, as Andres said, "Should obscene/etc words be bleeped".
EDIT: As explained later in this thread, my use of the word censorship here is a bit wrong. Texts, speeches etc. promoting violence towards certain groups should not be censored on beforehand. They should be illegal and lead to prosecution though.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Not as much, when it comes to privacy enfringment things are much worse here trust me, courtesy of a religiously insane christofacist that was minister of the justice department 'I can crush serpents and scorpions, I can arrest cartoonists, I am god' wikileaks says. Ernst Hirsch Ballin, or Hirschbollah as we call him. Evil guy
Aight. I was just curious of what you meant when you referred to Sweden as a "creepy thought police-state", and FRA was the only thing I could think of.Not as much, when it comes to privacy enfringment things are much worse here trust me, courtesy of a religiously insane christofacist that was minister of the justice department 'I can crush serpents and scorpions, I can arrest cartoonists, I am god' wikileaks says. Ernst Hirsch Ballin, or Hirschbollah as we call him. Evil guy
Originally Posted by Paltmull:
No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate
Aight. I was just curious of what you meant when you referred to Sweden as a "creepy thought police-state", and FRA was the only thing I could think of.
So, you hate the idea of some government group deciding what is acceptable.No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate
Aight. I was just curious of what you meant when you referred to Sweden as a "creepy thought police-state", and FRA was the only thing I could think of.
....And yet you propose that a government group is set up to censor speech you don't like(the very broad and vague term "incite violecen towards a group")....hmmm....
Originally Posted by Paltmull:
No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate.
Aight. I was just curious of what you meant when you referred to Sweden as a "creepy thought police-state", and FRA was the only thing I could think of.
Was more referring to Sweden's officials islamophilae and state controlled mediaNo. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate.
Aight. I was just curious of what you meant when you referred to Sweden as a "creepy thought police-state", and FRA was the only thing I could think of.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
So, you hate the idea of some government group deciding what is acceptable.
....And yet you propose that a government group is set up to censor speech you don't like(the very broad and vague term "incite violecen towards a group")....hmmm....
My basic idea is that everyone should be allowed to live their lives in whatever way they want to. Therefore, the government should not decide what kind of behaviour is or isn't morally legitimate. Hate speech (in this case meaning the promotion of violence, and not just contempt, towards groups of a certain ethnicity, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political views etc.), on the other hand, is inciting violation of other people's most foundational rights. That's the difference. Also, censorship perhaps isn't the right term here. Songs, speeches etc. should not be censored on beforehand, but if they contain hate speech, the performer or writer or whatever should be prosecuted afterwards. So, you hate the idea of some government group deciding what is acceptable.
....And yet you propose that a government group is set up to censor speech you don't like(the very broad and vague term "incite violecen towards a group")....hmmm....
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Was more referring to Sweden's officials islamophilae and state controlled media
Well, if you haven't noticed, last election an islamophobic party with nazi roots entered the parliament. There's both state controlled (which according to the law, should be independent even though it's publically financed. So it's not really state controlled, even though you could argue that it still is in practice), and non- state controlled media, but I get your point. Anyway; offtopic.Was more referring to Sweden's officials islamophilae and state controlled media
Originally Posted by Andres:
A firm "no".
Many people always go crazy when there is but a simple hint of something that resembles something that could limit freedom of speech and expression, yet, apparently, allmost everybody happily accepts the bleeping out in songs or television shows of words like, oh the irony,
and
While we're at it, covering a nipple with blots on television seems also utterly ridiculous to me. Or blotting out swear words on clothing of people who are interviewed or so.
People who go crazy at the hint of some limitation of free speech are silly though. So I don't see that as reason to do away with it.A firm "no".
Many people always go crazy when there is but a simple hint of something that resembles something that could limit freedom of speech and expression, yet, apparently, allmost everybody happily accepts the bleeping out in songs or television shows of words like, oh the irony,
and While we're at it, covering a nipple with blots on television seems also utterly ridiculous to me. Or blotting out swear words on clothing of people who are interviewed or so.
Originally Posted by paltmall:
No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate.
Why? We elected them. It's the people that want the f-word etc bleeped out on tv and radio. I can understand disagreeing with that and it does ruin some movies they show on tv (THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MEET A STRANGER IN THE ALPS) but why take your own tolerance for obscenity as the gold standard? Other people live in the same country.No. They should not. The only time censorship should be used is when violence against certain groups in society is encouraged. I hate the idea of the government or some bureau deciding what expressions or opinions are appropriate.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Why? We elected them. It's the people that want the f-word etc bleeped out on tv and radio. I can understand disagreeing with that and it does ruin some movies they show on tv (THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MEET A STRANGER IN THE ALPS) but why take your own tolerance for obscenity as the gold standard? Other people live in the same country.
Well of course. If a majority of the voters in a democracy wants words bleeped, then sure, bleep them. But just because a majority happens to like censorship, it doesn't mean that I have to.Why? We elected them. It's the people that want the f-word etc bleeped out on tv and radio. I can understand disagreeing with that and it does ruin some movies they show on tv (THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MEET A STRANGER IN THE ALPS) but why take your own tolerance for obscenity as the gold standard? Other people live in the same country.
Paltmull, who decides what is hate speech, and what is not?
My point is that one cannot both say that there shouldn't be any censorship committees AND wish to outlaw hate speech. "Hate speech" is a wonderously loose term that can be applied to practically everything, and you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't. The song this very thread is about could easily be defined as hate speech towards gays, and in fact, the reason we have this thread is that someone did just that.
One will have to decide between accepting hate speech and allowing censorship. I feel like bringing this one up again:
My point is that one cannot both say that there shouldn't be any censorship committees AND wish to outlaw hate speech. "Hate speech" is a wonderously loose term that can be applied to practically everything, and you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't. The song this very thread is about could easily be defined as hate speech towards gays, and in fact, the reason we have this thread is that someone did just that.
One will have to decide between accepting hate speech and allowing censorship. I feel like bringing this one up again:
Originally Posted by :
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Also, your point about not censoring beforehand but prosecuting afterwards isn't sound, because it will lead to another, more dangerous, form of censorship: self-censorship.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Also, your point about not censoring beforehand but prosecuting afterwards isn't sound, because it will lead to another, more dangerous, form of censorship: self-censorship.
self-censorshipAlso, your point about not censoring beforehand but prosecuting afterwards isn't sound, because it will lead to another, more dangerous, form of censorship: self-censorship.
hu, is that like self restraint?
Don’t most cultures hold that in positive regard? Kind of keep our selves from doing and saying dumb things, maybe?
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
self-censorship
hu, is that like self restraint?
Don’t most cultures hold that in positive regard? Kind of keep our selves from doing and saying dumb things, maybe?
Ask a Russian journalist.self-censorship
hu, is that like self restraint?
Don’t most cultures hold that in positive regard? Kind of keep our selves from doing and saying dumb things, maybe?
That is not a beep
There censorship is at gunpoint and sort of goes blam blam.
There censorship is at gunpoint and sort of goes blam blam.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
That is not a beep
There censorship is at gunpoint and sort of goes blam blam.
Nah. Most dictatorshps doesn't go through material before its published. But they make it perfectly clear what happens if the wrong words are said, thus people will censor themselves.That is not a beep
There censorship is at gunpoint and sort of goes blam blam.
This is the reason for the authoritarian reflexes we see in people working in dictatorships. The censorship has been both socialized and automated, and the subject no longer thinks about what he's ding, he simply conforms to the norms.
At least with committees, you will see a constant battle, with people consistantly trying to push the limits. That won't happen with self-censorship.
HoreTore: "Hate Speech" is indeed a loose term, but a law concerning that subject of course needs to be a lot more specific. The law can't just say "Hate Speech is forbidden". There has to be a detailed explanation of exactly what the term should mean. If it's specific enough, there really shouldn't be a problem. Applying the law would be up to a court, not some censorship committee.
About the quote: I think that all victims of Nazism, racism and various hate crimes disagree.
About the quote: I think that all victims of Nazism, racism and various hate crimes disagree.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Also, your point about not censoring beforehand but prosecuting afterwards isn't sound, because it will lead to another, more dangerous, form of censorship: self-censorship.
That doesn't really make sense. Self restraint is the point of all laws.Also, your point about not censoring beforehand but prosecuting afterwards isn't sound, because it will lead to another, more dangerous, form of censorship: self-censorship.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Ask a Russian journalist.
Ask a Russian journalist.
How about, "Ask a .org patron", we bleep things here after all!!!
The quote was from a US supreme curt justice, in a case about a communist group conspiring to overthrow the government in a violent revolution.
And I would love to see a definition of hate speech that is specific. No matter how you write such a law, it will be down to the judge in question how to apply it. It will always be a huge gray area that will be decided on a case by case basis. Also, a court is basically a government appointed comittee, the only real difference is that it won't be created for a single, specific purpose.
Self restraint is indeed the point of all laws. The law against theft, for example, is there to keep people from stealing. But there is no gray area with theft, you either steal or you don't. Neither is there a form of stealing that is not only considered lawful, but also vital for our society to function. We need speech. And the most provocative speech is the most wanted speech of them all. But where does one draw the line between vital provocative speech and hate speech? Leave it to the individual(self-censorship, or self-restraint if you will) and the line wil be drawn very conservatively, as we're not a particularly courageous bunch. And then we will lose the kind of speech that drives our society forward towards a better future.
And I would love to see a definition of hate speech that is specific. No matter how you write such a law, it will be down to the judge in question how to apply it. It will always be a huge gray area that will be decided on a case by case basis. Also, a court is basically a government appointed comittee, the only real difference is that it won't be created for a single, specific purpose.
Self restraint is indeed the point of all laws. The law against theft, for example, is there to keep people from stealing. But there is no gray area with theft, you either steal or you don't. Neither is there a form of stealing that is not only considered lawful, but also vital for our society to function. We need speech. And the most provocative speech is the most wanted speech of them all. But where does one draw the line between vital provocative speech and hate speech? Leave it to the individual(self-censorship, or self-restraint if you will) and the line wil be drawn very conservatively, as we're not a particularly courageous bunch. And then we will lose the kind of speech that drives our society forward towards a better future.
I'll reply tomorrow. Haven't got time atm (guests here) 
I don't think it's all that complicated. I don't care about discrimination or hate speech, be it anti-gay or anti whatever. I draw the line at calls for violence, hate whoever you want to hate it doesn't bother me, just won't be having a beer with ya. I truly detest the self-appointed morally superior self-congratulating guttmensch, can I. They don't need to have a beer with me either. Only want them slightly dead
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I don't think it's all that complicated. I don't care about discrimination or hate speech, be it anti-gay or anti whatever. I draw the line at calls for violence, hate whoever you want to hate it doesn't bother me, just won't be having a beer with ya. I truly detest the self-appointed morally superior self-congratulating guttmensch, can I. They don't need to have a beer with me either. Only want them slightly dead
....but how to define it? It's impossible to make a hard definition, as people will simply work arund it, using "codes" and such like. For example, instead of "kill all group X", one could say "it would be good if group X left", which the supporters know the meaning of. But it will be up to a government comittee(like a court) to decide what goes and what doesn't, based nostly on their gut feelings.I don't think it's all that complicated. I don't care about discrimination or hate speech, be it anti-gay or anti whatever. I draw the line at calls for violence, hate whoever you want to hate it doesn't bother me, just won't be having a beer with ya. I truly detest the self-appointed morally superior self-congratulating guttmensch, can I. They don't need to have a beer with me either. Only want them slightly dead
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
....but how to define it? It's impossible to make a hard definition, as people will simply work arund it, using "codes" and such like. For example, instead of "kill all group X", one could say "it would be good if group X left", which the supporters know the meaning of. But it will be up to a government comittee(like a court) to decide what goes and what doesn't, based nostly on their gut feelings.
Decifering code is the investigator's job, why should the judge care about that, Cutting down the tall trees can be anything, workers assignment but in Rwanda it meant a call for genocide. Only intention should count, hard job for the judge but that's what his job is.....but how to define it? It's impossible to make a hard definition, as people will simply work arund it, using "codes" and such like. For example, instead of "kill all group X", one could say "it would be good if group X left", which the supporters know the meaning of. But it will be up to a government comittee(like a court) to decide what goes and what doesn't, based nostly on their gut feelings.
I completely agree with Fragony on the part that the line should be drawn at inciting violence, while you should not get punished just for expressing dislike for or insulting a certain group (I also explained this in an earlier post in this thread). I hope I was clear enough on this point, HoreTore, so we haven't been discussing different things.
Except for what Fragony's already said, there's one more thing worth mentioning: Precedents. In most legal systems (AFAIK), if a law for some reason is unclear, sooner or later one or more cases will end up in the supreme court. As a result, there will be a number of predecents that even further clarify how the law in question should be interpreted.
Except for what Fragony's already said, there's one more thing worth mentioning: Precedents. In most legal systems (AFAIK), if a law for some reason is unclear, sooner or later one or more cases will end up in the supreme court. As a result, there will be a number of predecents that even further clarify how the law in question should be interpreted.
.....and, by wanting that, you will have to create one of those government committees on thoughts control you said you was against, which was the point I objected to.
It's all fine and dandy to want to ban "incitements to violence"(whatever that means), but you can't do it without a government committee that decides what goes and what doesn't. The only way to get rid of those is to allow absolutely all speech.
It's all fine and dandy to want to ban "incitements to violence"(whatever that means), but you can't do it without a government committee that decides what goes and what doesn't. The only way to get rid of those is to allow absolutely all speech.
I'll just quote myself:
Originally Posted by :
My basic idea is that everyone should be allowed to live their lives in whatever way they want to. Therefore, the government should not decide what kind of behaviour is or isn't morally legitimate. Hate speech (in this case meaning the promotion of violence, and not just contempt, towards groups of a certain ethnicity, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political views etc.), on the other hand, is inciting violation of other people's most foundational rights. That's the difference.
My basic idea is that everyone should be allowed to live their lives in whatever way they want to. Therefore, the government should not decide what kind of behaviour is or isn't morally legitimate. Hate speech (in this case meaning the promotion of violence, and not just contempt, towards groups of a certain ethnicity, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political views etc.), on the other hand, is inciting violation of other people's most foundational rights. That's the difference.
Yes, and to protect those rights you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
.....and, by wanting that, you will have to create one of those government committees on thoughts control you said you was against, which was the point I objected to.
It's all fine and dandy to want to ban "incitements to violence"(whatever that means), but you can't do it without a government committee that decides what goes and what doesn't. The only way to get rid of those is to allow absolutely all speech.
Isn't that what police and prosecutors do? It sounds like a law enforcement issue to me. Why do you need another agency to cover the same ground?.....and, by wanting that, you will have to create one of those government committees on thoughts control you said you was against, which was the point I objected to.
It's all fine and dandy to want to ban "incitements to violence"(whatever that means), but you can't do it without a government committee that decides what goes and what doesn't. The only way to get rid of those is to allow absolutely all speech.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Yes, and to protect those rights you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't.
Of course you do. I'm afraid we've been discussing different things. The government should have no saying in how people choose to live their lives. But you shouldn't be allowed to violate or incite someone to violate other people's most foundational rights. That's it.Yes, and to protect those rights you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Yes, and to protect those rights you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't.
Nah that's up to the police and the judge, government just sets the framework in which they operate. Yes, and to protect those rights you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't.
Is the Norway Post a normal newspaper btw
.....and the police/judge would be the committee.
No idea what that newspaper is, never heard of it before.
No idea what that newspaper is, never heard of it before.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
.....and the police/judge would be the committee.
That's not possible as police and judges work independently......and the police/judge would be the committee.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
That's not possible as police and judges work independently.
So does a committee.That's not possible as police and judges work independently.
Edit: well..... Some of them do
I thought most committee persons sat around waiting for someone else on the committee to make the decision and take the risk while they waited to see which way the wind was blowing before committing.
It takes a special kind of committment to do otherwise.
It takes a special kind of committment to do otherwise.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO