Free speech or Censorship

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
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?

His band name used to be dicking bimbos cowboy..but he had to shorten to DBCowboy for forum rules.

Correct me if I’m wrong but it was originally you, bill and bill in the dicking bimbos cowboy correct?

All true.

I played the air guitar.

Awwww the good ole days. I still have you album DBCowboy!! Why bill left you and bill off the cover I have no idea....

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nightbringr

Child porn is an infringement of under-aged minors rights.

Are you for infringing on the rights of a minor?

Of course not. I'm simply asking the 'no censorship at ANY cost ' OP if she would allow it.

Infringing on another's rights is not a protected right.

I see! So you DO agree that type of thing should be censored.

Too bad the OP doesn't agree.

Do I want infringement of rights stopped?

Of course.


If you see it as censorship, then that's on you.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nightbringr

Child porn is an infringement of under-aged minors rights.

Are you for infringing on the rights of a minor?

Of course not. I'm simply asking the 'no censorship at ANY cost ' OP if she would allow it.

Infringing on another's rights is not a protected right.

I see! So you DO agree that type of thing should be censored.

Too bad the OP doesn't agree.

Do I want infringement of rights stopped?

Of course.


If you see it as censorship, then that's on you.

I absolutely call the banning of images that infringe on the rights of those who cannot consent to give permission censorship.

What the hell do you call it?

Ps. If if makes it easier in on you, don't think of it as a bad word in this case. Child open is the one and only case censorship SHOULD be allowed. If you cannot see that you and the OP have massive issues.

a reply to: nightbringr


Justice.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nightbringr


Justice.

Someone needs to look in the dictionary. And please see my edit above. If you don't think there should be censorship on such material, please seek help.

a reply to: nightbringr

Like I previously stated, child porn is an infringement of many rights. I have never stated nor advocated for infringing on anyone's rights ever.


Child porn is not "free speech" therefore cannot be considered "censorship" because it is an infringement of another's rights.


It would be like calling censorship if you didn't allow a murderer to continue expressing himself by committing more murders.

a reply to: Wookiep

They're spot on with the cynism, that's what I was getting at. Kinda funny that you've decided not to bother anymore.

a reply to: DBCowboy
Ill make it easy on you:

censorship

ˈsensərSHip/

noun

1.

the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

"the regulation imposes censorship on all media"

2.

(in ancient Rome) the office or position of censor.

"he celebrated a triumph together with his father and they held the censorship jointly"

As you can see, censorship is simply the banning of words or images. There is no mention of the infringing of rights. You are purposefully misusing the word. We would all like to think censorship should be banned 100%, but we need to protect those who need it the most.

Banning ANY written word or images is censorship. Spin it how you will, but the English language clearly defines the word.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nightbringr

Child porn is an infringement of under-aged minors rights.

Are you for infringing on the rights of a minor?

Of course not. I'm simply asking the 'no censorship at ANY cost ' OP if she would allow it.

Infringing on another's rights is not a protected right.

I see! So you DO agree that type of thing should be censored.

Too bad the OP doesn't agree.

Do I want infringement of rights stopped?

Of course.


If you see it as censorship, then that's on you.

I absolutely call the banning of images that infringe on the rights of those who cannot consent to give permission censorship.

What the hell do you call it?

Ps. If if makes it easier in on you, don't think of it as a bad word in this case. Child open is the one and only case censorship SHOULD be allowed. If you cannot see that you and the OP have massive issues.

you continue to maintain this false equivalence logical fallacy that child porn and speech are the same thing.

as Les pointed out some time ago, they arent equivalent.

it is clear that you are simply trying to derail the conversation, which is why you are starting with a flawed premise and doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on it when pressured.

its logically false, you are wrong, you lost this one. we need to go on without you here because you unable to contribute to the discussion.

originally posted by: Incandescent
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There must be at least a few caveats on freedom of speech if we are to maintain a civilised society. 100% unrestricted freedom of speech is not logically a good idea. For example, what if somebody in the US wants to do a speaking tour of universities about becoming jihadists. Would you really be all for somebody advocating for people being allowed to promote and network fellow jihadists to promote the killing of Westerners and non-believers on campus?

Yes I would, and for many reasons, but here are a few.

One, I want to know who the Jihadis in the room are. Two, any suppression of their speech drives them underground where they tend to flourish, their oppression gives credence to their illiberal claims. Three, the less likely it is to hear Jihadi arguments, the less likely it is to hear refutations of their arguments.

There are many more reasons why we would let Jihadis, racists, and all forms of offensive speech.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: nightbringr

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?

I do disagree. By making people victims of speech you only weeken them to it. There are not victims to speech.

Censorship also covers images. Don't be obtuse, you understood my question.

You then disagree with the censorship of underage porn? Just so I understand.

There are two types of people who say child porn is free speech, advocates for censorship and people busted for child porn.

You think child porn is free speech? Just so I understand.

Child pornography is not speech, in my opinion. It is contraband, the product of despicable crimes. If you want to call child porn speech, and the criminalization of its dissemination and production censorship, be my guest.

On the other hand, there was an artist in Finland who made an art piece which contained child porn, which she readily found on the internet. The piece was meant to bring awareness to the availability of child pornography. Her show was cancelled and the work confiscated by Finnish authorities. I disagree with that decision.

Thats a tough line to walk.

So you would disallow it for some, but not for others who are trying to 'educate'. Since this ladies that you would allow would be considered 'art', I would assume it would be open for all to see? In an art gallery or such where it could be photographed, uploaded to the web and then downloaded millions of times until it is no longer art.

You might as well just say you would allow it.

Note that your arguments consist of makeing-up scenarios, predicting, prophesizing what might occur given this or that action, and torturing your fantasies until it gives you the results you want, all for the sake of justifying censorship.

"Free speech or Censorship?"

Personally I'll go with the Rocky Road.

This again, how many threads about the same subject are you going to have??
You might have an excellent command of the written word but most of your threads are just that, a well written thread but your arguments have no substance. You seem to just leave a thread and start another when your arguments are shown to be hollow. We get the usual comments that words can't hurt people, you refuse to go to a link that backs up a quote or different view to you, and your opinion that freedom of speech is all or nothing even if that means paedophilia, Nazism, and jihadists and any other scum of the earth get to have a voice. You are blinkered, blinded and unbending by your own loyalty to a concept.
we live in a society were freedom of speech is becoming limited to where it's allowed, because corporations, and individuals own "space" like the internet and other places that don't allow that "freedom". So how is it free, when it's controlled where it can be used?

originally posted by: Kurokage
This again, how many threads about the same subject are you going to have??
You might have an excellent command of the written word but most of your threads are just that, a well written thread but your arguments have no substance. You seem to just leave a thread and start another when your arguments are shown to be hollow. We get the usual comments that words can't hurt people, you refuse to go to a link that backs up a quote or different view to you, and your opinion that freedom of speech is all or nothing even if that means paedophilia, Nazism, and jihadists and any other scum of the earth get to have a voice. You are blinkered, blinded and unbending by your own loyalty to a concept.
we live in a society were freedom of speech is becoming limited to where it's allowed, because corporations, and individuals own "space" like the internet and other places that don't allow that "freedom". So how is it free, when it's controlled where it can be used?

Freedom exists before you and your ilk prance in saying it shoudnt be.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Putting words in my mouth now!
What's my "ilk" then?
And as usual no real argument, just a snarky comment. You do the same everytime!?!

a reply to: snarfbot

And you clearly do not grasp what 'censorship ' means. It means the banning of words AND images. What about this do you not understand? You and others keep regurgitating the words 'free speech ', when that is not all that censorship covers.

If a ruling government decided it does not like the logo of a rival party and bans it, that is censorship. They have censored an image. You and others seem to think banning words and images are two separate things, one of which is not censorship. No idea why you make that break in logic.

a reply to: Kurokage

Don't take what she says to heart. She already said she disagrees with the her friend having their child porn 'art' being taken away from them.

Her agenda here is frighteningly obvious and repugnant.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Putting words in my mouth now!
What's my "ilk" then?
And as usual no real argument, just a snarky comment. You do the same everytime!?!

By ilk I mean those who seek to limit the freedoms of others. Do you fall into that camp?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Putting words in my mouth now!
What's my "ilk" then?
And as usual no real argument, just a snarky comment. You do the same everytime!?!

By ilk I mean those who seek to limit the freedoms of others. Do you fall into that camp?

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: Kurokage

Don't take what she says to heart. She already said she disagrees with the her friend having their child porn 'art' being taken away from them.

Her agenda here is frighteningly obvious and repugnant.

It is suspicious that both you censors and those busted for disseminating images of abused children call child porn free speech. Repugnant indeed.