In Defense Of Censorship

Wait...What?! Defend censorship? Yes, hear me out before you go all keyboard warrior.

There has been a lot of spirited debate lately about freedom of speech. DBCowboy has made a few excellent threads on the topic each with over 400 comments and 1 with over 1500 comments. Nice job DB!

In Defense of Stephen Colbert
Another College, another speaker, another cry for censorship
Congratulations! Ann Colture Finally Silenced On Berkeley Campus
Are You Ready For Cinco De Milo

But reading through these threads it seems that people think that freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want wherever you want.

Among other things like freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, the first amendment says that congress shall make no law abridging your right to freedom of speech. This means you are free to criticize the government without fear of retribution.

This freedom does not extend to your employer or private entities. Let me give you an example.

You are an employee at McDonald's. A customer walks in and you say "Whats up you ugly fat a$$, you want an extra large fry today?"

"But I was just using my freedom of speech" you cry as the manager shows you to the door.

McDonald's and other companies censor what their employees can say. Who here would defend that employees "free speech" if he were fired? I sure as hell wouldn't. Being fired is what he deserves.

My point is censorship has its place. Everyone wants to be treated with respect and like my example, employers censor their employees. Some even have scripts to read from to make sure customers are being treated with respect. You can say whatever you like but don't be surprised of the negative consequence from these actions.

ATS censors us and we accept this simply by reading the T&C when signing up. The result is a place with mostly good conversations and debate. Ever been to 4Chan? Some of the things said there are disgusting. That is what ATS would look like without these censors. They are a private organization and can make whatever rules they want as a stipulation for using their product.

Stephen Colbert.

First of all, who gives a crap what this idiot says? If you were offended by his comment you must not have realized yet that Hollywood / the media are all like this. They do things like this to stay cool among their peers, they have their liberal clique and if you aren't apart of it then watch out. My solution, just don't watch! It's that simple. And yes, I know there is a double standard. There would be outrage, wall to wall coverage if someone like Kid Rock said this about Obama or Hillary, like I said if you're not in the clique then watch out. Just don't watch!

I don't like the things that come out of celebrity liberals mouths, but I would stand by them 100% if the GOVERNMENT came after them.

On the other hand If CBS wants to fire him, or private citizens want to boycott him I don't give a crap, have at it. He made his bed now he'll have to lie in it.

So remember you're "freedom of speech" protects you from the Government. It does not protect you from other citizens, your employer, or a private place you may visit. You walk into a theater and yell fire, don't be surprised when you get kicked out. Your "freedom of speech" wont keep you in to watch the movie.

Sadly common manners and respect can't be legislated
Once you legislate something, pandoras box is opened

It's all a balance, there are no answers

a reply to: FauxMulder



Thanks for the complement.


But I must point out that if you go to work anywhere, you usually sign documentation, a contract of sorts that acknowledges your limits to free expression in the workplace as well as an understanding that the employer can/will fire you at their discretion.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Most successful legislation is of the type "you can't do this" not of the type, "you must do it this way." The "you must do it this way" type of legislation always ends up failing because of unforeseen ambiguities which lead to uncomfortable applications.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
My point is censorship has its place. Everyone wants to be treated with respect and like my example, employers censor their employees. Some even have scripts to read from to make sure customers are being treated with respect. You can say whatever you like but don't be surprised of the negative consequence from these actions.

I have heard it argued countless times like this: If I want to be a bigoted a hole it's my right to do so. How is it respect if you don't respect my right to be an intolerant a hole?

In other words, just respecting someone else is not good enough. Allowing me to be disrespectful means you are respecting me.

I enjoyed reading this, very good thread, star and flag.

I use to be a huge fan of colbert, but his slander and bias served to increase my faith in Trump overshad.

We all know tv personalities do this kind of thing, but with Trump, I feel like they want to hurt him. Just a feeling.

a reply to: FauxMulder

The reason the problem exists (atleast on ATS) is because people cannot agree to what "free speech" is. Like Cowboy has said many times, how can we fix a problem if we don't agree on the issue?

Partisanship is too strong in many cases and it seems the actual issue of free speech comes secondary.

Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre either.

The right to free speech is about persecution for questioning authority. Doesn''t have anything to do with fats food, lol. In fact I think anyone that eats at Mickey D's is an idiot.

Well said. It's a difficult issue and so many people don't understand it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FauxMulder

But I must point out that if you go to work anywhere, you usually sign documentation, a contract of sorts that acknowledges your limits to free expression in the workplace as well as an understanding that the employer can/will fire you at their discretion.

Exactly. An employer or private entity can do that and it has nothing to do with violating your rights. But the government cannot make a law saying we cant say things they don't like.

a reply to: dfnj2015

In other words, just respecting someone else is not good enough. Allowing me to be disrespectful means you are respecting me.

Well then you create the problem of being disrespectful via your spoken word by being an intolerant A-hole then expect to be respected in return despite your own lack of respect??? Did I get that right?

Why is it this generation wants big government running things,in my day it was the opposite,are people afraid of making their own moral decisions?,sounds like a personal problem

a reply to: FauxMulder

I am in agreement with what you have said.
As far as Colbert goes, I don't care. He can say what he wants. If it weren't for ATS, I wouldn't have known that he said it.
I don't watch him.
I don't watch CBS.
I hear very little MSM news any more.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Nor can an individual(s) demand censorship, punishment towards someone simply because they said something they deemed offensive.

originally posted by: Arnie123
I enjoyed reading this, very good thread, star and flag.

I use to be a huge fan of colbert, but his slander and bias served to increase my faith in Trump overshad.

We all know tv personalities do this kind of thing, but with Trump, I feel like they want to hurt him. Just a feeling.

There's a big difference with being roasted or being put into satire from people that respect you and from people that don't.

Hey, its all in the plastic bottle water you guys are drinking.

a reply to: DBCowboy

They can demand whatever they want but it doesn't mean its going to happen. I demand you give me a million dollars! They just make themselves out to be whinny sensitive people IMO.

They can do things though such as boycotts. That happens all of the time and it can have an affect like we just saw happen with YouTube after some advertisers pulled out.

I'm all for people saying whatever they want I really don't get offended by any of it. I just don't listen if I don't like it. I wish more people did that. A lot of the outrage is manufactured and political in nature.

a reply to: FauxMulder

You and I are in agreement in this thread. I'm glad that some people remember what the 1st Amendment says.

a reply to: FauxMulder

The problem is people equate free speech with the 1st Amendment.

The 1st Amendment only protects the speaker from the government.

Free speech infringement on a more personal level involves an individual infringing on the rights of another individual.


And that's where my focus has been, primarily.

Our society places importance in the spoken word, the written word, symbols. Maybe too much.


People now feel that "being offended" empowers them to infringe upon the rights of others.

The more we accept and allow for free speech, the less impact it would have on individuals and society as a whole.

Just imagine if everyone supported free speech and looked at "offense" objectively. It would be a society where people would acknowledge the right, but would place no obligation on the potential listener.

Some people want censorship because their ears catch fire when certain worlds are uttered.

Everyone knows someone like this, they close their eyes and plug their ears with their fingers.

IOW, children.