More liberal censorship
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Always has been. No right is without some fetter. Among the things you can't do with your right to free speech? Run down the street screaming profanity, or hand out the plans for making a chemical bomb. Try inciting a riot with speech so calculated, and so on.
It's not a liberal or a conservative notion or position, rather more of a functioning political neccessity, so why you have it under liberal censorship is anyone's guess.
From the article "Regulation of free speech, whether for a “compelling” state or administrative interest or otherwise, is censorship plain and simple."
Completely agreed.
Completely agreed.
Sure. And some censorship is as good as some use of freedom is demonstrably bad.
Or, we've always had censorship. It's often a very good thing and not one any reasonable human being on either side of the political fence would find objectionable.
Unless you think public nudity, profanity, incitement to riot, etc. is or serves a public good. Again, I can't think of any right, offhand, that isn't subject to restriction of some sort.
Nice diversion, but that is not what is being refereed to in the article.
What is being referred to in the article is the suggestion for legitimate speech to be censored in the name of the state. Im surprised you support it.
Censorship is found everywhere--even in conservative groups.
Any tyrannical nation or ideological group has to censor, burn books or target other groups. The tyrannical personality always has to tamp down any movement that challenges them.
Diversity and free speech are alarming to nations or personalities that are authoritarian in nature.
Any tyrannical nation or ideological group has to censor, burn books or target other groups. The tyrannical personality always has to tamp down any movement that challenges them.
Diversity and free speech are alarming to nations or personalities that are authoritarian in nature.
It wasn't a diversion. I was speaking directly to the notion of censorship as an ill or unrestrained freedom as a good. Neither is the case, demonstrably.
I don't follow links or watch youtube videos and didn't speak to anything beyond the premise given here. If it didn't represent what followed then the error was in the presentation. Everyone who has something to get off his chest finds that legitimate. If I get a minute I'll follow the link to see where they ran with it.
The presentation has an error because you decided not to read what is being discussed and comment anyway?
No, the presentation would be errant if it's announced premise differed from the point contained within the article. I commented directly on the premise offered.
Just started reading in the link. First, it appears the speaker said that where there is a legitimate government interest in censoring speech it should be done as narrowly as possible. Meaning it should be done in the least restrictive manner. That seems reasonable.
The "Review" is then quoted in its interpretation, which seems mistaken to me as offered. The Review assumes the state's interest to be in opposition to the citizen. It might be in the strictest sense, opposing a citizen who desires to publish an article/speech entitled "How to make a bomb with household chemicals" but the state's interest serves the larger interest of the people.
That's mostly how it works. Which is why you can't run down the street naked as a protest screaming obscenities legally.
I read the article. Nothing changed except I can't get the seconds it took back and I'm now unimpressed by a new author, one whose opening line gave me reason to shake head at the maturity he was bringing to bear on the point.
Running down the street naked ad screaming has nothing to do with anything in that article, period.
It absolutely does. It's an illustration of speech being censored and that's the point under consideration. It's also an example of narrow action that leaves most speech protected, going to the Cornell President's point.
Anything else on my breakdown of the article? Did you read the article or the article it linked to? Were you struck by the immaturity evidenced in the author's crude opening?
A few gems from that "Review":
Sort of puts a light on the writer's bias from the opening bell.
Rather, they qualify and illustrate a distinction, the opposite of hiding.
That's the author's assumption/stump. It has no support in what she said or in the practice of censorship as it is mostly utilized by the state, as per my example.
And there he is, finally, summed in his "statists" rejection. Another extremist bent on seeing the world outside of his wheelhouse as something dark and odious.
Not going to agree with you that its ok for the state to violate the first amendment, nor that they have a compelling interest in doing so.
To agree with that is to agree to give up your freedoms, that the constitution was designed to protect and specifically about this kind of state sponsored censorship.
To agree with that is to agree to give up your freedoms, that the constitution was designed to protect and specifically about this kind of state sponsored censorship.
Then I'm glad neither the framers nor the laws following have agreed with you and that it remains illegal to scream obscenities in public or publish how to manufacture home made bombs for use in revolutionary uprisings and suggest your notion of unrestrained speech as a good is, at best, profoundly mistaken and without any historic root.
Not at all. Speech has always had all sorts of restraints and it hasn't perished from or by them.
The framers never intended you or anyone to have unrestrained speech. You want examples?
What other type is there?
Wouldn't you agree that it is under attack from ideologues on both sides today?
Oh, I think it's always been under attack or used badly by one group or another. I'm more concerned with the left than the right these days, more troubled by what that fringe attempts and, to some extent, what it has managed to accomplish.
The right, at their worst, try to get us to think about a thing in a certain way, use speech to couch contrary ideas as unpatriotic. That can have a chilling effect on discourse, to be sure...but the left has introduced the notion of hate speech and that concerns me more. I can write off a fanatic waving a judgment at me, but when words become entangled in criminal convictions it tends to do more than temper speech, it can move to eliminate it.
So I don't want to see the march toward banning unpopular speech and expression as a matter of more than education and upbringing, if you follow. I find that, disappointingly enough, to be more of a concern generated by those to my left.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
at least he didn't go for the "Aztecs will be sacrificing victims in their suburban backyards" bit :chuckle: