Is Censorship Ever Fair?
YouTube just last week banned thousands of mostly, right wing, anti-feminist and anti-"Israeli" channels on its website. Their justification? These channels use "hate speech". Other platforms have taken similar steps. Does "hate speech" justify censorship?
Is censorship ever justified?
EDIT: Accidentally put this thread in the news section. It might be better placed in Society.
Is censorship ever justified?
EDIT: Accidentally put this thread in the news section. It might be better placed in Society.
(edited 6 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by CookieButter
YouTube just last week banned thousands of mostly, right wing, anti-feminist and anti-"Israeli" channels on its website. Their justification? These channels use "hate speech". Other platforms have taken similar steps. Does "hate speech" justify censorship?
Is censorship ever justified?
Is censorship ever justified?
That's not really why you posted this, though, is it? It's not to start a reasoned and interesting debate about censorship and free speech, but to push an alt-right / neo-Nazi victimhood agenda. Because you guys are the real victims in modern society
(edited 6 years ago)
I find censorship hard to justify under "hate speech" as the term can be so vague and politically exploitable. It's become the left's most useful weapon against right-wing political opponents for that very reason. It's classic McCarthyism. Almost anything can be "hate speech" nowadays.
Original post by AlexanderHam
That's not really why you posted this, though, is it? It's not to start a reasoned and interesting debate about censorship and free speech, but to push an alt-right / neo-Nazi victimhood agenda. Because you guys are the real victims in modern society
The real victim is modern society because the far left's agenda would set us back hundreds of years.
I believe that censorship should never apply to anything that is the truth i.e something that can be proved to have happened as opposed to someone's version of the truth. If a video is posted by the alt-right of an event that happened why should it be censored. Some things need to be aired particularly as there is so much religious bias around at the moment.
The way that censorship is going we are heading more towards a communist style of censorship - very one-sided.
firslty; Moved this to Society for you 
Secondly; absolutely not. I couldnt care less if these people are filth spewing nazis, rabid communists or just irritating people in between they have just as much right as anybody else to express these opinions.
I think the biggest gripe is the inherent double standards expressed here though - bashing Israel = bad but bashing [and killing] Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrian et al. is peachy? Seems a bit suspect to me.
Secondly; absolutely not. I couldnt care less if these people are filth spewing nazis, rabid communists or just irritating people in between they have just as much right as anybody else to express these opinions.
I think the biggest gripe is the inherent double standards expressed here though - bashing Israel = bad but bashing [and killing] Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrian et al. is peachy? Seems a bit suspect to me.
Original post by AlexanderHam
That's not really why you posted this, though, is it? It's not to start a reasoned and interesting debate about censorship and free speech, but to push an alt-right / neo-Nazi victimhood agenda. Because you guys are the real victims in modern society
Do you have to call every single person you disagree with a Nazi/far right etc. person?
I mean I find most of your arguments to be complete **** but the ones which arent you completely undercut yourself by resorting to abusing everyone who doesnt agree with you. Its churlish and childish.
Yes, censorship can be justified where the views represent incitement to crime or promotes things like racial hatred. Apart from this, the likes of Facebook are businesses which users have to voluntarily participate in and do so subject to their rules. If a person or group breaches Facebook's rules then that's just tough I guess.
Original post by Napp
Do you have to call every single person you disagree with a Nazi/far right etc. person?
I mean I find most of your arguments to be complete **** but the ones which arent you completely undercut yourself by resorting to abusing everyone who doesnt agree with you. Its churlish and childish.
I mean I find most of your arguments to be complete **** but the ones which arent you completely undercut yourself by resorting to abusing everyone who doesnt agree with you. Its churlish and childish.
To be fair, the OP is pretty easily recognised as having an alt-right/far-right agenda from their various posts here.
Original post by Napp
Do you have to call every single person you disagree with a Nazi/far right etc. person?
I mean I find most of your arguments to be complete **** but the ones which arent you completely undercut yourself by resorting to abusing everyone who doesnt agree with you. Its churlish and childish.
I mean I find most of your arguments to be complete **** but the ones which arent you completely undercut yourself by resorting to abusing everyone who doesnt agree with you. Its churlish and childish.
This is very ironic considering your entire post is a personal attack, with no argument.
I completely agree with censorship as a justified reaction to hate speech, as I feel the effects of hate speech are more detrimental than the effects of its censorship.
(edited 6 years ago)
It's a private organisation.
Do I think censorship is a good thing? No.
Do I think that censorship creates intellectual bubbles? Yes.
Do I think that Youtube or any other private company has the right to dictate what views can be heard on their sites? Absolutely.
Do I think censorship is a good thing? No.
Do I think that censorship creates intellectual bubbles? Yes.
Do I think that Youtube or any other private company has the right to dictate what views can be heard on their sites? Absolutely.
Original post by Napp
firslty; Moved this to Society for you
Secondly; absolutely not. I couldnt care less if these people are filth spewing nazis, rabid communists or just irritating people in between they have just as much right as anybody else to express these opinions.
I think the biggest gripe is the inherent double standards expressed here though - bashing Israel = bad but bashing [and killing] Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrian et al. is peachy? Seems a bit suspect to me.
Secondly; absolutely not. I couldnt care less if these people are filth spewing nazis, rabid communists or just irritating people in between they have just as much right as anybody else to express these opinions.
I think the biggest gripe is the inherent double standards expressed here though - bashing Israel = bad but bashing [and killing] Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrian et al. is peachy? Seems a bit suspect to me.
It's a private company...
Don't you think private companies have the absolute right to say what they want people to see on the platform they own?
If we're talking about governmental censorship, that's an entirely different issue, but these are private companies.
yes, censorship should be enforced.
It should be that if you are breaking a law or encouraging others to break a law, then you are sensored..
The problem today is not so much with the censoring, but with the laws. For example - laws around 'hate'
Hate is such a difficult and subjective term to define, that it can be far to easily manipulated to censor others, as it is now. Its very very easy to accuse someone you disagree with of spreading 'hateful ideologies' or 'inciting hatred' - because it has no objective or grounded definition, they are entirely down the subjective judgement of the offended participant (usually).
So, censorship - yes. manipulating loose legislation/laws - no.
It should be that if you are breaking a law or encouraging others to break a law, then you are sensored..
The problem today is not so much with the censoring, but with the laws. For example - laws around 'hate'
Hate is such a difficult and subjective term to define, that it can be far to easily manipulated to censor others, as it is now. Its very very easy to accuse someone you disagree with of spreading 'hateful ideologies' or 'inciting hatred' - because it has no objective or grounded definition, they are entirely down the subjective judgement of the offended participant (usually).
So, censorship - yes. manipulating loose legislation/laws - no.
Original post by Waldorf67
This is very ironic considering your entire post is a personal attack, with no argument.
I completely agree with censorship as a justified reaction to hate speech, as I feel the effects of hate speech are more detrimental than the effects of its censorship.
I completely agree with censorship as a justified reaction to hate speech, as I feel the effects of hate speech are more detrimental than the effects of its censorship.
So, for example, its ok to show a video that shows white cops beating up a black man in handcuffs that ultimately is the cause of violent riots by the black community yet it is not ok to show IS throwing gays off buildings or beheading people.
Selective unfair censorship.
Original post by Dandaman1
I find censorship hard to justify under "hate speech" as the term can be so vague and politically exploitable. It's become the left's most useful weapon against right-wing political opponents for that very reason. It's classic McCarthyism. Almost anything can be "hate speech" nowadays.
This. I think in principle "hate speech" should be banned, however, when it results in the liberal left calling anything that questions their dogma as "hate" then where does that leave us? No, I think there's only very few speech that should be banned.
Can anyone think of an example where censorship is justified?
We have a great example of McCarthyism in AlexanderHam's comment.
I'm not a nazi and I am not alt-right. I am fervently against the far right but I am more so against the far left. The far right lacks the power to impose its wrongs on society. The far left on the other hand is highly institutionalised and therefore able to impose its ways on society. Therefore, I find things that are wrong in left wing politics more dangerous to society than those of the right....and both in my view have crippling flaws.
Indeed it is good sir. Leftist ideologies/movements go out of their way to justify the very same things they claim to be against. Have you ever heard the idea that "men cannot be victims of sexism"? or the idea that "black people cannot be racist"? These two ideas are used by leftist ideologies to justify racism, violence and hate by their followers against for example men and "non-back" people. I hope this comment doesn't cause offence to "black" people.This isn't an attack on "black" people but rather the flawed ideologies behind certain movements claiming to represent them.
and it will through censorship. Censorship suppresses peoples' thought and expression. It prevents people from challenging things that are potentially wrong in society. It discourages people from engaging in and critically thinking about certain topics. People are discouraged from thinking independently and challenging what they are taught. People are prevented from thinking except in a way that is agreeable with the status quo. People are encouraged to accept everything they are told by authority and discouraged from change by threat of punishment. These are the ingredients of regression in society. You see the regressive effects of censorship clearly across the globe. The more authoritarian a society the more regressive it is.
Thanks
I agree. Censorship is a concept entirely based on double standards. I should censor you because I think you are wrong. You however do not have that same right. You do not have the right to question my wrongs. It creates an environment that allows powers that be and their allies to abuse people with impunity and the "Israeli" issue is a great example of this.
There is a thread on this forum on Jordan Peterson a leftist university lecturer. In this thread the author calls this man that fought far right politics for 30 years alt-right. They call everyone that disagrees with them nazis no matter how far from the truth that is. They maliciously reframe disagreement as hate in an effort to discredit their opponents. They have no other means by which to defend what they stand for other than to silence their critics and prevent people from listening to them. They are a great example for the evils of censorship.
Are private organisations free to abuse people HighOnGoofballs? If censorship is wrong, they should not be allowed to do it regardless of whether or not they are private or public.
Original post by Dandaman1
It's classic McCarthyism.
We have a great example of McCarthyism in AlexanderHam's comment.
Original post by AlexanderHam
That's not really why you posted this, though, is it? It's not to start a reasoned and interesting debate about censorship and free speech, but to push an alt-right / neo-Nazi victimhood agenda. Because you guys are the real victims in modern society
I'm not a nazi and I am not alt-right. I am fervently against the far right but I am more so against the far left. The far right lacks the power to impose its wrongs on society. The far left on the other hand is highly institutionalised and therefore able to impose its ways on society. Therefore, I find things that are wrong in left wing politics more dangerous to society than those of the right....and both in my view have crippling flaws.
Original post by nutz99
There is no neo-nazi agenda. It is simply something pushed by the far left as an excuse for their violence.
Indeed it is good sir. Leftist ideologies/movements go out of their way to justify the very same things they claim to be against. Have you ever heard the idea that "men cannot be victims of sexism"? or the idea that "black people cannot be racist"? These two ideas are used by leftist ideologies to justify racism, violence and hate by their followers against for example men and "non-back" people. I hope this comment doesn't cause offence to "black" people.This isn't an attack on "black" people but rather the flawed ideologies behind certain movements claiming to represent them.
Original post by nutz99
The real victim is modern society because the far left's agenda would set us back hundreds of years.
and it will through censorship. Censorship suppresses peoples' thought and expression. It prevents people from challenging things that are potentially wrong in society. It discourages people from engaging in and critically thinking about certain topics. People are discouraged from thinking independently and challenging what they are taught. People are prevented from thinking except in a way that is agreeable with the status quo. People are encouraged to accept everything they are told by authority and discouraged from change by threat of punishment. These are the ingredients of regression in society. You see the regressive effects of censorship clearly across the globe. The more authoritarian a society the more regressive it is.
Original post by Napp
firslty; Moved this to Society for you 
Thanks
Original post by Napp
Secondly; absolutely not. I couldnt care less if these people are filth spewing nazis, rabid communists or just irritating people in between they have just as much right as anybody else to express these opinions. I think the biggest gripe is the inherent double standards expressed here though - bashing Israel = bad but bashing [and killing] Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrian et al. is peachy? Seems a bit suspect to me.
I agree. Censorship is a concept entirely based on double standards. I should censor you because I think you are wrong. You however do not have that same right. You do not have the right to question my wrongs. It creates an environment that allows powers that be and their allies to abuse people with impunity and the "Israeli" issue is a great example of this.
Original post by Napp
Do you have to call every single person you disagree with a Nazi/far right etc. person?
I mean I find most of your arguments to be complete **** but the ones which arent you completely undercut yourself by resorting to abusing everyone who doesnt agree with you. Its churlish and childish.
I mean I find most of your arguments to be complete **** but the ones which arent you completely undercut yourself by resorting to abusing everyone who doesnt agree with you. Its churlish and childish.
There is a thread on this forum on Jordan Peterson a leftist university lecturer. In this thread the author calls this man that fought far right politics for 30 years alt-right. They call everyone that disagrees with them nazis no matter how far from the truth that is. They maliciously reframe disagreement as hate in an effort to discredit their opponents. They have no other means by which to defend what they stand for other than to silence their critics and prevent people from listening to them. They are a great example for the evils of censorship.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
It's a private organisation.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Do I think that Youtube or any other private company has the right to dictate what views can be heard on their sites? Absolutely.
Are private organisations free to abuse people HighOnGoofballs? If censorship is wrong, they should not be allowed to do it regardless of whether or not they are private or public.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
Can anyone think of an example where censorship is justified?
Are private organisations free to abuse people HighOnGoofballs? If censorship is wrong, they should not be allowed to do it regardless of whether or not they are private or public.
Are private organisations free to abuse people HighOnGoofballs? If censorship is wrong, they should not be allowed to do it regardless of whether or not they are private or public.
Of course they should be allowed to do it. If you have guests over to YOUR party in YOUR property, and they start saying things you do not want them to say, you have the ultimate right to kick them out. The same with private organisations.
If you take away the right of a private organisation to control their property, to control their investment, to control their product, you hereby set a precedent which discourages innovation, stiffles growth, and affects the rights of the rest of us.
The government shouldn't be allowed to censor because that infringes upon freedom of speech and edges into authoritarian rule. Private companies should because they own their product, it's not infringing upon freedom of speech and it's not authoritarian, it's simply protectionism.
I fail so see how setting rules, boundaries and limits on how people use your product is abuse?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
That's not really why you posted this, though, is it? It's not to start a reasoned and interesting debate about censorship and free speech, but to push an alt-right / neo-Nazi victimhood agenda. Because you guys are the real victims in modern society
He very well may have an agenda in posting this ... and? That in and of itself doesn’t invalidate the point he is making, nor does it negate your ability to debate it ... unless of course you can’t debate it.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
It's a private company...
Don't you think private companies have the absolute right to say what they want people to see on the platform they own?
If we're talking about governmental censorship, that's an entirely different issue, but these are private companies.
Don't you think private companies have the absolute right to say what they want people to see on the platform they own?
If we're talking about governmental censorship, that's an entirely different issue, but these are private companies.
So?
No botnin the cases of behemoths such as Facebook, they large sacrificed that privilege when they made a point of having billions of users
Original post by Napp
So?
No botnin the cases of behemoths such as Facebook, they large sacrificed that privilege when they made a point of having billions of users
No botnin the cases of behemoths such as Facebook, they large sacrificed that privilege when they made a point of having billions of users
It's not a priviledge to be able to dictate what going on or what happens to your product.
It's a right. If I make an invention, I decide who uses it, I decide what happens, I decide. It's property, and if you think owning property, especially property that you made, is a bloody 'priviledge', you have an immensely murky view of the world and rights in general.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
It's not a priviledge to be able to dictate what going on or what happens to your product.
It's a right. If I make an invention, I decide who uses it, I decide what happens, I decide. It's property, and if you think owning property, especially property that you made, is a bloody 'priviledge', you have an immensely murky view of the world and rights in general.
It's a right. If I make an invention, I decide who uses it, I decide what happens, I decide. It's property, and if you think owning property, especially property that you made, is a bloody 'priviledge', you have an immensely murky view of the world and rights in general.
If you say so old boy
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
