Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bortness]

What about if people prevent people attending a speech by someone they disagree with? That's not censorship? If I were to pull the fire alarms on a speech that you wanted to attend so that you could not attend it, that would not be censorship?

You're not a government, and preventing people from attending the speech isn't censorship- it would be preventing the speech in the first place. Though I'm rather certain that pulling a fire alarm or forcibly preventing someone from going somewhere that they wish to go violates some other law- assault in the latter case, maybe vandalism in the first? You'd be hard-pressed to find a way to prevent speech from happening as a non-government agent in a way that isn't illegal for other reasons.

I mean, when it comes to companies firing people, every state but Montana are "right to fire" states where the reason for firing an employee isn't required and doesn't matter. The former employee can challenge the firing on a basis of discrimination, at which point the employer has to prove that it was not under discriminatory grounds. I mean, "I didn't like the color of his tie that day" is a valid reason to fire someone.

As for your earlier bit about the XKCD comic, it's just pointing out rather plainly that if you have the right to express your opinion, others have the right to tell you to shut up. Mind you, you can just keep talking; you're under no obligations here. If they ban you from a forum, I'm rather certain that you made no contract with the owner of the forum under any form of "right to post" so it doesn't matter why they banned you- they are under no obligation to care. You're under no restriction to not make another account. So on and so forth.

And the stuff about universities? Eh, each one's different. Also they're not government institutions and students sign contracts where they can remove the student whenever they damn well please.

Exactly.  The difference between government institutions and private ones makes all the difference in this instance.
That said, it is perfectly reasonable to accuse a private institution of hypocrisy.

[Loud Whispers]

It is censorship if you derail a thread by shitposting so it gets locked.

I think I'll be going :x

[nullBolt]

You're not a government, and preventing people from attending the speech isn't censorship- it would be preventing the speech in the first place. Though I'm rather certain that pulling a fire alarm or forcibly preventing someone from going somewhere that they wish to go violates some other law- assault in the latter case, maybe vandalism in the first?

Fundamentally, non-government entities can still censor. Censorship is not limited to government action.

As an example, if Google, Facebook and every other major tech company joined up to stamp out a viewpoint, they likely could do. Quite a few of them are doing something similar already. Would this be censorship? I would argue very much it was. Censorship by private entities, but still censorship nonetheless.

As for your earlier bit about the XKCD comic, it's just pointing out rather plainly that if you have the right to express your opinion, others have the right to tell you to shut up. Mind you, you can just keep talking; you're under no obligations here. If they ban you from a forum, I'm rather certain that you made no contract with the owner of the forum under any form of "right to post" so it doesn't matter why they banned you- they are under no obligation to care. You're under no restriction to not make another account. So on and so forth.

Of course they can. That is their right to tell me to shut up. The reality of it is that they are showing that they have no refutation of my arguments in telling me to shut up.

And the stuff about universities? Eh, each one's different. Also they're not government institutions and students sign contracts where they can remove the student whenever they damn well please.

They are different, but the vast majority of universities (at least within the UK) are now pro-censorship.

They do, but holding someone's life on the line by threatening to ruin it if they express the wrong viewpoint is, again, censorship.

So to recap, there is a completely subjective standard and anyone who violates that standard has broken a principle you claim to be universal.

Is your viewpoint relevant to the debate in any way? No? Then it's not a matter of exclusion, it's a matter of bounds.

Ultimately, freedom of speech isn't a fundamental right. You have no fundamental rights. Freedom of speech is our way of being polite, however, and accepting that debate with opposing viewpoints makes a healthy society which can grow, change and evolve.

It is censorship if you derail a thread by shitposting so it gets locked.

I think I'll be going :x

The scary thing is, Loud, your shitposting usually contributes meaningfully and doesn't seem to get threads locked.

[Bortness]

But you're not. There should, of course, be some limitation on the bounds of a debate. But limiting the bounds of a debate and limiting the viewpoints in a debate are two separate things.

So to recap, there is a completely subjective standard and anyone who violates that standard has broken a principle you claim to be universal.

1: That standard is only "universal" as it pertains to governmental institutions.
2: Limiting the "bounds" of a debate is how a debate functions in the first place - without limiting the bounds of a debate (essentially choosing a "thesis" over which to argue) makes the debate chaotic and largely useless.
3: This is NOT the same thing as censoring someone - it is a mechanism to keep the conversation on-topic and the back-and-forth from falling logically off a cliff.
4: Regardless, it doesn't flipping MATTER if it's censorship or not, so long as it is a private institution.
5: If we are discussion a private institution, it remains PERFECTLY legitimate to accuse it of hypocrisy when its actions clearly do not line up with its stated values.

[NullForceOmega]

And you are the police force of the forum?  I see no screaming nor do I see name calling anywhere.

What in the world is wrong with you?

You are either intentionally missing the point in order to obfuscate and try to make it look like I'm saying thing that I am not saying, or you genuinely do not have the intellectual power to understand the discussion.

Either way is pathetic.

Precisely, it is a common debate technique used by people who know that their position holds no logical merit.  It is akin to simply throwing feces around the room until everyone else leaves, then declaring yourself the victor.

This is rather easy to call insulting and or excessively aggressive/escalating.  All I'm trying to do is ask people to watch their tone so that Tarn  doesn't have to shut down yet another discussion because people can't remain calm.

If someone should find this call for cooler heads to prevail unacceptable then I apologize.

[Bortness]

And you are the police force of the forum?  I see no screaming nor do I see name calling anywhere.

What in the world is wrong with you?

You are either intentionally missing the point in order to obfuscate and try to make it look like I'm saying thing that I am not saying, or you genuinely do not have the intellectual power to understand the discussion.

Either way is pathetic.

Precisely, it is a common debate technique used by people who know that their position holds no logical merit.  It is akin to simply throwing feces around the room until everyone else leaves, then declaring yourself the victor.

This is rather easy to call insulting and or excessively aggressive/escalating.  All I'm trying to do is ask people to watch their tone so that Tarn  doesn't have to shut down yet another discussion because people can't remain calm.

If someone should find this call for cooler heads to prevail unacceptable then I apologize.

Why do you care?  You're contributing nothing to the discussion except to make your judgement about tone clear to everyone else.
Thanks, mom.

[nullBolt]

Why do you care?  You're contributing nothing to the discussion except to make your judgement about tone clear to everyone else.
Thanks, mom.

Bort, I agree with Null (capital N, see) on this. Stop.

[mainiac]

2: Limiting the "bounds" of a debate is how a debate functions in the first place - without limiting the bounds of a debate (essentially choosing a "thesis" over which to argue) makes the debate chaotic and largely useless.

Cool then, you have answered your own question.  The universities were just promoting useful debate.

[Bortness]

2: Limiting the "bounds" of a debate is how a debate functions in the first place - without limiting the bounds of a debate (essentially choosing a "thesis" over which to argue) makes the debate chaotic and largely useless.

Cool then, you have answered your own question.  The universities were just promoting useful debate.

Do you conceptually understand the difference between choosing a debate topic, and wholesale banning one side of that same debate so it is never heard?

[mainiac]

Yes, one happens to views you consider worthless, one happens to views you agree with.

[Bortness]

Yes, one happens to views you consider worthless, one happens to views you agree with.

So, you do not understand the difference, because that's DEFINITELY not it.

[Loud Whispers]

What exactly is everyone arguing? Free speech is gud

[nullBolt]

Yes, one happens to views you consider worthless, one happens to views you agree with.

That's not the case at all and we both know it.

See, mainiac, you may be very pro-paedophilia. That doesn't mean that your pro-paedophile viewpoint should be included in a debate on classroom safety. Your paedophilia loving viewpoint should be included on a debate on sexuality, consent and age, though. Because it is relevant to the bounds of the debate.

I'll address this for fun:

1) is not censorship, but probably vandalism
2) is indecent exposure and vandalism; still not censorship
3) Toady can do what he damn well pleases; he's under no obligation to lock or delete threads based on their content. He chooses to, because they're his forums, and he gets the choice as to the content displayed and who can actively participate in the production of content. So, not censorship.

Why not? To all of them? You have purposefully censored a viewpoint you disagree with using some method.

Censorship in the dictionary says nothing on government.

I'm just arguing that private entities cannot commit censorship due to either being incomplete or breaking some other law in the process, and that hence the laws for censorship only apply to governments.

Why?

Is it censorship if a government is incompetent in their censorship? I might be able to go down to the pub and discuss it even if it's banned by the government. Is that not censorship because it is incomplete?

[Loud Whispers]

I'm just arguing that private entities cannot commit censorship due to either being incomplete or breaking some other law in the process, and that hence the laws for censorship only apply to governments.

What happens if every media outlet removes a certain detail from a certain story? They are private entities, so this must mean their very literal act is somehow not censorship?

[mainiac]

That's not the case at all and we both know it.

So the terms of the debate you are insisting on are that we accept that your undefined standard is axiomatically correct from the start.

Rather ironic I think.