Free speech or Censorship

One act of censorship is a thousandfold more pernicious than the entirety of all censored information combined. A bold claim, certainly, but I think it is true in both the short and the long term. To deny another the ability to impart information is to deny every subsequent individual, and indeed the rest of human history, the chance to receive it, learn from it, and make do with it what we will.

But men who cannot peer into the future will take it upon themselves to use their blindness as impetus to silence another. The censorship of Socrates, for instance, was intended to stop the corruption of Athenian youth. Whether that worked or not is uncertain, but their censorship stole from the rest of history a node of expression from which previously had come much wisdom, and all because some wealthy noblemen had a fearful hunch about the effects of his speech. Besides the obvious tyranny of executing a man for fear of what he might say and what the effect might be, we are certainly all the poorer due to the loss if this one mind. Whatever benefits there may have been for his censorship pale in comparison to the damage incurred by the loss of his voice.

This is true of all acts of censorship. Not one human being has come under death, injury or corruption because he happened to hear certain combinations of words and sentences deemed dangerous by some censor or bigot, yet the bodies of censored men and women litter the earth, their works stolen and destroyed because censors fear the opposite.

This same superstitious fear exists in all those who avoid the absolute adherence to free speech, opting instead for excuse-making and ways to wiggle, like a worm, out of defending it.

That’s why we should finally call out as liars those who say they believe in free speech so long as it comes with a litany of caveats and restrictions. The unprincipled, conditioned, relativistic approach to free speech often has little to do with free speech. It is all a ploy to disguise the fact that they would much rather restrict your freedoms than let you exercise them. Their arguments against the absolute, God-given, fundamental right to free speech is in one way or another an argument for censorship.

They are censors, and as censors is how they should be known.

LesMis

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

One act of censorship is a thousandfold more pernicious than the entirety of all censored information combined. A bold claim, certainly, but I think it is true in both the short and the long term. To deny another the ability to impart information is to deny every subsequent individual, and indeed the rest of human history, the chance to receive it, learn from it, and make do with it what we will.

What if that information is the PIN to your debit card that I learned looking over your shoulder? And what if I had not only your PIN but the card numbers, expiration dates and CVV codes for your card and 10,000 other people and I started tweeting them one at a time.

If Twitter shutdown my account to stop me from tweeting that information — to censor me — would that act be worse than the 10,000 acts of me publishing that information?

Or how about if a voyeur was able to snap nude photos of your SO, didn't much care for your online posting habits and decided to post nude photos of your SO, taken without consent, on a photo sharing site? Would the site taking down that revenge porn be an act of censorship that is worse than the injury to your SO?

How about child pornography? Do you think think censoring child pornography is a thousand times worse than child pornography?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I believe that would be an infringement.

And I do not believe that people have a right to infringe upon others.

a reply to: DBCowboy

WTF lol After I read your second sentence I was rolling around laughing and crying. You make a good point but to put it the way you did is funny. You get a star sir. Was that the name of your band in college?

a reply to: theantediluvian

The conflating of child pornography and stolen passwords with free speech is lazy.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


OH MY GOSH! It's you with the same old same old again! Sweeeeet.

This is true of all acts of censorship.

Let's talk about all acts of censorship then. Otherwise your truth obviously aint the whole truth.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

OH MY GOSH! It's you with the same old same old again! Sweeeeet.



This is true of all acts of censorship.


Let's talk about all acts of censorship then. Otherwise your truth obviously aint the whole truth.

Oh great, another censor. By all means.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You stiffs wouldn't catch a single drift in my uncensored posts. I'm constantly filtering non-stiff-stuff for the public eye, and I saw you doing so as well a few times. Which typically coincides with the moment you folks pretent "not to understand".

The only difference would be, that you freedom fries (dipped in rinse & repeat sauce) can't afford to be frank about it for some dubious reasons.

It's Syre Censorlock for you, btw.

bunch of pro censorship bootlickers in here huh

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You stiffs wouldn't catch a single drift in my uncensored posts. I'm constantly filtering non-stiff-stuff for the public eye, and I saw you doing so as well a few times. Which typically coincides with the moment you folks pretent "not to understand".

The only difference would be, that you freedom fries (dipped in rinse & repeat sauce) can't afford to be frank about it for some dubious reasons.

It's Syre Censorlock for you, btw.

I'm not sure you know what censorship means, Censorlock.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm offended that a court jester like you dares to censor my full title.

the only time freedom of speech comes up nowadays is when a neo-nazi troll gets booted off twitter or whatever for spreading hate speech.
imagine a russian alex jones type trying to question putin's birthplace, religion, sexual orientation or wifes gender and consider how long they would be walking.
or just look at how many journalists get murdered after questioning putin.
in britain and america we have free speech, this website being a good example, look at the lies and hogwash certain posters troll the site with.
you want to believe the clintons are to blame for every death ever recorded and the fact real news reporters don't report nonsense triggers you, thats kinda on you, not some freedom of speech mumbo jumbo.
america's current president has called for arrests of people reporting factual events, but the same people questioning freedom of speech don't, for whatever reason, see a problem with that, a 30 day twitter ban for baiting a religion however...

originally posted by: screamager
the only time freedom of speech comes up nowadays is when a neo-nazi troll gets booted off twitter or whatever for spreading hate speech.
imagine a russian alex jones type trying to question putin's birthplace, religion, sexual orientation or wifes gender and consider how long they would be walking.
or just look at how many journalists get murdered after questioning putin.
in britain and america we have free speech, this website being a good example, look at the lies and hogwash certain posters troll the site with.
you want to believe the clintons are to blame for every death ever recorded and the fact real news reporters don't report nonsense triggers you, thats kinda on you, not some freedom of speech mumbo jumbo.
america's current president has called for arrests of people reporting factual events, but the same people questioning freedom of speech don't, for whatever reason, see a problem with that, a 30 day twitter ban for baiting a religion however...

Neo-nazis, cartoonists, dissidents, journalists, apostates, comedians—it doesn't matter—you either believe in free speech or you don't.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm offended that a court jester like you dares to censor my full title.

I don't care what you identify as.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The conflating of child pornography and stolen passwords with free speech is lazy.

Then why not answer the question instead of lazily avoiding it? If there is one place where censorship SHOULD be allowed, is to protect those most vulnerable in society. Do you disagree?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Not one human being has come under death, injury or corruption because he happened to hear certain combinations of words and sentences deemed dangerous by some censor or bigot, yet the bodies of censored men and women litter the earth, their works stolen and destroyed because censors fear the opposite.

I don't believe that for a second.
Speech is a very powerful and can be a dangerous thing.

I'm 100% for free speech, I support your right to yell "fire" in a theater.

But the best argument for free speech is the power of it.
Trying to belittle the effects that words can have on people only hurts your argument.

There are actually people here on ATS that are pro-censorship.

The world has truly gone mad.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Without the Assurance of Free Speech , there would be no Freedom at All . Might as well put the Shackles on Yourself.........

Good lord. How can you not be for free speech?
How else are you going to know whom the idiots are, if you don't hear them spouting off?
However will you avoid them in the future?
I'm all for letting White Supremisist speak in puplic.
So I know who they are and can avoid them.

But I will admit to silencing the hubby sometimes. But that is only for his own safety.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If you're needing assurance then you have already put the shackles on.