Print

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

[SalmonGod]

To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it.

This is your point of view.  There are other people who do not share this point of view.  You have to get along with those people in public.  Getting along with people who are different from you requires compromise.  If compromise cannot be achieved, society cannot function.  This means tolerating limited censorship, even if you don't agree with it.  It's that simple.  Being dogmatic just isn't practical.

[kaijyuu]

When it comes to fundamental human rights, I'm pretty sure being dogmatic is the correct approach. Make a practicality argument if you wish, but that only concerns implementation, not the ideas he's espousing.

[SalmonGod]

If I remember correctly, in Germany you can get charged for having Nazi symbolism/memorabilia in your home if it's not a family related or something like that. So having Grampa's old WWII medal that he got from Hitler himself is perfectly fine, while buying up old WWII medals for display is not. I believe the reasoning goes that the only people who would collect such things outside of historical/family reasons are Neo-Nazis, which are also illegal in Germany.

Now this is wrong to me.  As much as I disagree with neo-nazis, I disagree with thought policing more.  People can have whatever disgustingly racist thoughts in their head that they want and decorate their homes accordingly.  It's when they act on their hatred that I have a problem with it, and that includes going out and starting fights -- which is where I'd argue that going out in public and shouting racial slurs at people is wrong (because it's damaging to the function of society) and shouldn't go unanswered.  I'll agree that implementation is sticky and not something I really trust to legal enforcement.  I'd prefer that cultural stigma towards such behavior be significant and mature enough to serve instead... but that doesn't really work either.

When it comes to fundamental human rights, I'm pretty sure being dogmatic is the correct approach. Make a practicality argument if you wish, but that only concerns implementation, not the ideas he's espousing.

But being too stubborn on one fundamental human right can end up infringing on another.  If a bunch of hate speech results in death, I'd rather there be something preventive in place to deal with the hate speech than wait for the death and deal out retribution.

[USEC_OFFICER]

If I remember correctly, in Germany you can get charged for having Nazi symbolism/memorabilia in your home if it's not a family related or something like that. So having Grampa's old WWII medal that he got from Hitler himself is perfectly fine, while buying up old WWII medals for display is not. I believe the reasoning goes that the only people who would collect such things outside of historical/family reasons are Neo-Nazis, which are also illegal in Germany.

Now this is wrong to me.  As much as I disagree with neo-nazis, I disagree with thought policing more.  People can have whatever disgustingly racist thoughts in their head that they want and decorate their homes accordingly.  It's when they act on their hatred that I have a problem with it, and that includes going out and starting fights -- which is where I'd argue that going out in public and shouting racial slurs at people is wrong (because it's damaging to the function of society) and shouldn't go unanswered.  I'll agree that implementation is sticky and not something I really trust to legal enforcement.  I'd prefer that cultural stigma towards such behavior be significant and mature enough to serve instead... but that doesn't really work either.

The cultural stigma does exist against the behaviour, and the laws are kinda a codification of that, but... it's definitively a bit extreme. For a while you could be arrested for displaying anti-fascist symbols/material if they contained the swastika or other Nazi symbols. Thankfully they'e realized how stupid that is, but it does show how overzealous they are against Nazism.

[SalmonGod]

It is very understandable that Germany would be harsh on the subject.

But being too stubborn on one fundamental human right can end up infringing on another.  If a bunch of hate speech results in death, I'd rather there be something preventive in place to deal with the hate speech than wait for the death and deal out retribution.

And mind you, I am only talking about extreme examples here -- like behavior that will obviously lead to conflict or making it unbearable for a minority to leave their home.  I think there is too much taboo in our public spaces in the U.S. as it is.  However, I can't say that I would do away with everything.

[Bohandas]

Of course, if we are talking 2016 we really need some real people to compare against, in order to get the full scale of neutral to evil politicians.

There are politicians who aren't evil?

[Bohandas]

My quickly-written take on censorship:

Spoiler: Quite long (click to show/hide)

The reason for censorship is almost always because it is harmful in society. How do you define what could and could not cause problems beyond your private space? How do you define what these problems would include? Censorship is quite a complex issue mostly due to the fact that one generally does not consider censorship they agree with as censorship. This allows people to define it as an absolute evil despite (almost always) supporting some measure of censorship. It is a morally grey area.

Take something extreme, like certain-inappropriate-images-of-children, which is quite understandably illegal. Its distribution and ownership is illegal even in the space of one's own home. The reason for this is it can cause harm for the child, and that the child is not capable of making any decisions for itself. I don't think there are many people that would question this form of censorship, but most people do not regard this as a form of censorship, as it is generally regarded as a "special case".

Then it falls to me to question it.

I would argue that only the production of it harms the child and the distribution and possession of it should only be criminalized in cases where they directly aid the production of it, such as if it has been paid for.

Furthermore, the law and the assumption of harm makes the assumption that the child has been coerced against their will; In probably upwards 99% of cases this is true, but does that justify demonizing and persecuting the remaining fraction of a percent?

EDIT:
Also, and most importantly of all, the laws against child porn as they currently stand if an underaged person takes pornographic photos of themself, and distributes them themself,  - with no other person involved - it is still illegal. Sexting by teens is illegal. The law persecutes the very people it was supposedly intended to protect.

[PTTG??]

Yes, because children do not have informed consent.

[GlyphGryph]

Scriver, to be honest most of the censorship views on games/pornography seem to be the result of a rather strong schaffer fence. And to be honest, I think that's a fairly good thing, since I've never met anyone who advocates for video game censorship without also advocating for political censorship.

I'm sure they exist, but at the very least they don't seem to get into US politics much.

[Bohandas]

Yes, because children do not have informed consent.

What about this:
The laws against child porn as they currently stand if an underaged person takes pornographic photos of themself, and distributes them themself,  - with no other person involved - it is still illegal. Sexting by teens is illegal. The law persecutes the very people it was supposedly intended to protect.

EDIT:
IIRC Technically it is illegal even if they don't distribute them; There isn't even a suggestion of a victim there.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Just a note: Video games cannot be censored in the United States. In 2011 the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association resulted in the Supreme Court affirming that video games are an artistic and communicative medium protected by the First Amendment. As they are not broadcast indecency legislation cannot be leveled against them either. The only status that could be leveled against video games under current law would be obscenity legislation, and the legal definition of obscenity is nearly impossible to meet.

Here is the current definition of obscenity:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Furthermore, enacting and enforcing obscenity laws has been rare to nonexistent amongst the states these days.

[Helgoland]

But being too stubborn on one fundamental human right can end up infringing on another.  If a bunch of hate speech results in death, I'd rather there be something preventive in place to deal with the hate speech than wait for the death and deal out retribution.

This is essentially the view I take as well: Have whatever thoughts you want, but as soon as you start acting - and talking in public is an action! - you need to consider the consequences and face sanctions if the consequences are bad, with "bad" being "a very wide consensus on what's bad".
I kinda like the way it's dealt with in the German Grundgesetz (A constitution by any other name...) :

"Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar."
(The dignity of the human being may not be infringed upon.)

It's one of only two parts that cannot be changed with a large enough majority: It stands even above the principle of democracy. It is the ultimate goal of the state, and the state will do whatever is necessary to fulfill its duty of protecting it.

On the videogame part: These games should be censored if they lead to undesirable consequences, e.g. people running amok. As there is no indication of any such connection, I'm against the bann - the whole thing is obviously a "Think of the children!"-type campaign.
This has nothing to do with "expression of thoughts" - these games (I assume, although there surely are other games where this does not apply) are purely commercial, therefore without value for the public discourse and therefore should not be protected by the first amandment, but by the principle of liberalism alone.

On the child pornography part: We have to ask ourselves if allowing child pornography to circulate once it's been produced will lead to undesirable consequences. At the first glance you wouldn't think so, but think about this: If circulation is allowed, getting newly produced (and we all can imagine the sort of process) material of the type into circulation will be easier, and producction will be more likely to take place. Therefore even only allowing circulation indirectly harms children. However, I think that non-active pedophiles have it hard enough already, so persecution should focus on the people in production and distribution, similar to the approach to drugs (Although that may be different in America; at least in Europe the idea is to get the junkies into rehab instead of prison.).

And yes, I just showed sympathy for (some) pedophiles and advocated leniency against (some of) them.

[Owlbread]

To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it.

This is your point of view.  There are other people who do not share this point of view.  You have to get along with those people in public.  Getting along with people who are different from you requires compromise.  If compromise cannot be achieved, society cannot function.  This means tolerating limited censorship, even if you don't agree with it.  It's that simple.  Being dogmatic just isn't practical.

I'm not describing how I live my life (I make a point of not offending people for the reason that there are laws against it. I also rarely need to offend anyone, you can get along just fine without doing it, and it's not a nice thing to do), I'm talking about how I think society should function. I think it should function without that limited censorship. I also wouldn't say so bluntly "you have to get along with those people in public". I actually don't. I could have an argument with someone in the street and the most I could get is a breach of the peace if I was really out of line, but broadly speaking I can argue or not get along with anyone I choose. A society isn't necessarily a place where everyone is forced to get along.

[SalmonGod]

That's not quite what I meant by "get along".  What I mean is you need to be able to tolerate them as your co-workers, neighbors, cashiers, waitresses, etc, because more than two people are likely to be effected if you cannot.  You need to be able to cooperate when necessary and resist the desire to harm each other.  You don't have to agree with each other or willingly associate when you can avoid it.  Arguments are fine.  Arguments are good, actually.  I think it's healthy for people to express disagreements with each other, so long as they can restrain themselves to verbal exchange of moderate intensity.

And most people can do this without a problem, but a problematic enough portion cannot.  I can pretty safely assume, just by your presence on this forum, that you have a good deal more patience and rationale than the average person.  Basing your stance on an issue like this on your own persona is therefore not very practical.  I also think that society should function without any censorship, but that doesn't mean I can expect it to.

I live in a state that only 40-50 years ago was the national capital of the KKK, and whose government was openly controlled by them.  There's still a lot of racism here.  Fortunately, there is now a lot of pressure to keep that racism under control in public places.  If that pressure wasn't there, I imagine it would be incredibly miserable to be a non-white hoosier.  There would be a lot more violence, and the entire state would be more dysfunctional overall.

[Helgoland]

I think it's healthy for people to express disagreements with each other, so long as they can restrain themselves to verbal exchange of moderate intensity.

And that's a reason for censorship: The state has to operate under the assumption that some, if not most people behave little different than animals; that they can and will disregard the law and that therefore situations in which the law might be broken have to be avoided entirely.

Think about it this way: It's illegal to steal. Do you lock your car/house/room regardless?