Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.
It’s the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don’t fuck with the freedoms of others.
Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
You’re confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action.
Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech.
As much as I think it’s a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime.
You’re oversimplifying. What we’re talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts.
Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
I don’t know what you’re trying to control for, but I’m trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You’ve got nothing to contribute other than hoping there’s someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they’ve committed that genocide.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
You’re stopping that expression - it’s censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can’t pretend it’s not censorship.
distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don’t know why you’d raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don’t think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.
Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.
Please don’t make me put a dictionary in front of you.
“Freedom of expression of opinion” would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions…
Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their “thought” while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?
Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.
I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they’ve stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They’ll be raping children at this event - it’s our patriotic duty to stop them!
Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between “should be allowed” and “should be cencored”. It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.
It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.
If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?
You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it
Ummm… my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything… I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)
All censorship is bad?
Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.
It’s the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don’t fuck with the freedoms of others.
You’re confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action.
Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech.
As much as I think it’s a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime.
There’s a very distinct difference.
I think you’re confused about thought - it’s got nothing to do with anything I said.
Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences.
What’s the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what’s more serious than genocide?
You’re making my point. Banning these things is not the same thing as censorship.
Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn’t censorship - got it.
You’re oversimplifying. What we’re talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts.
Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
I don’t know what you’re trying to control for, but I’m trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You’ve got nothing to contribute other than hoping there’s someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they’ve committed that genocide.
You’re stopping that expression - it’s censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can’t pretend it’s not censorship.
Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don’t know why you’d raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don’t think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.
Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.
Please don’t make me put a dictionary in front of you.
deleted by creator
“Freedom of expression of opinion” would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions…
Censorship of any opinion is bad.
Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their “thought” while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?
Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.
I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they’ve stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They’ll be raping children at this event - it’s our patriotic duty to stop them!
Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between “should be allowed” and “should be cencored”. It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.
It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.
If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?
Ummm… my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything… I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)
There’s already laws about that. Another false equivalence
So you were wrong when you said that not all censorship is bad.
If paedophilia were legalised, you’d defend it? If not, why would you raise legality in a conversation about morality?
Friendship is two best friends executing pedophiles together.
That’s been my motto for awhile. And I’m very much in favor of doing the Chris Hansen routine to catch pedos…Nice strawman by the way.