Censorship

[nightazday]

what's your take on it?

I'm not talking about the covering up information censorship I'm talking about:

-censoring what you think are lies
-banning "dirty" words and actions
-forbidding others from saying like racial slurs and propaganda
-"political correctness" (both left and right hates it)

also what do you think of your governments censorship program

if you say yes or maybe don't be afraid to describe the ones you like, don't like, or would like to add

[Diagoras]

I do not think censorship is justified. Penalizing people for saying something that you find unpleasant is not nearly warranted. Lies should be countered with evidence and reason. There are no "dirty" words. Hateful deeds should be punished, and organization in defense against groups/persons that might/will commit hateful actions should occur. Hateful words are not in themselves infringing upon freedom. You don't have the freedom to not be offended by the opinions of other people. Racists and bigots should be shunned, mocked and censured, but not censored.

[pastradamus]

Censorship opposed freedom of information and thus knowledge. It is therefore suppressive to the human intellect and propagates reactionary and ignorant beliefs, not to mention lies and propaganda.

[Revulero]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech. It is impossible for something not to be censored.

[nightazday]

I don't see how. Please enlighten me.

allow me, right now people have a good enjoyment of trying to obtain the role of power to usher in what they believe is the greater good whether it is or not. When a person dies their voice usually dies with them, when one speaks out another voice is either filtered or muted, when one angers another with words of insult and lack of tact one will try to stop him/her from saying more

people just can't talk all at once and even if they can no one will listen

[khad]

The fetishization of liberal and libertarian attitudes among many in the Western left is disturbing, though I assume that many of these are white anarchists, so I'll give that a pass.

Even without formal censorship, any socialist society will need to construct a discursive hegemony to marginalize/destroy reactionary ideas (one of Gramsci's points that many of his readers neglect to acknowledge).

[mikelepore]

It's important never to censor racists. When there are hurricanes or earthquakes, it's good for the public to detect that they are happening. When there is racism, it's good for the public to detect that it's happening. The only effect of censoring racists is to prevent alarms from being sounded. It increases the secrecy surrounding a danger. To censor racists is to deprive society of information about hazards. You might as well deplore house fires so strongly that you get rid of your smoke alarm, or tell the doctor who listens to your heart that if it's bad news you don't want to be told about it.

[Angry Young Man]

The poll is too shallow. There's no context. Yes, I would shut down the Daily Mail, but I would allow nudity, violence, etc. in the media. Sort of like an anti-Fox news network. All these negative liberties are a bloody nonsense when four men, who have the same values, control the whole mainstream.

[S.O.I]

most stuff that is censored today is radical left-wing music on TV channels like MTV and ZTV.. so no, cencorship is a really bad idea

[apathy maybe]

I think that this thread should be censored.

I am assuming that we are talking about government censorship?
In which case, all radical and revolutionary leftists should oppose it. End of story.

In the case of a future perfect society, there won't be any censorship, because there won't be any censors. End of story.

---


"-censoring what you think are lies" - I really don't understand this. The sky is pink!
"-banning "dirty" words and actions" - What a stupid idea.
"-forbidding others from saying like racial slurs and propaganda" - You can't stop them.
"-"political correctness" (both left and right hates it)" - Define political correctness. I always understand it to mean not offending people for characteristics they can't change (to put it simply).

[STJ]

I voted no. Censorship bothers me i prefer freedom of choice.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No. Allowing the government to censor people sets a dangerous precedent. First it's the fascists, then it's us, then it's everything slightly anti-government. It's a slippery slope and it's not worth it to risk it trying to keep a few people from getting their feelings hurt.

[Comrade Che]

I voted no, but now that I think about it, I should've voted maybe, they should ban hate words, but they should not ban the F word & anti government words.

It really depends on what word and in what context it is being used in if it should be banned.

[Glenn Beck]

Racists themselves should be censored. With firearms. HOWEVER

Replacing blatant expressions of racism with PC language is just a nice way to ignore social problems and ironically gives racists an excellent shield. All of us in the USA have surely seen how much racist ideas have thrived here in the mainstream since the big push for political correctness in the 90s. They've just learned to use code-words including making the very struggle against PC standards a code for racism.

[Eva]

I don't believe in censorship, however, I do believe in media responsibility; which is of course, a subjective concept.

I think that (when it comes to editorials), the best way to distinguish between academic freedom and propaganda would be to prohibit corporate and government subsidiaries. Have the press be a public service and operate on the basis of donations.

When it comes to language, I think we should not make a fuss over profanity, but at the same time, we should also know when to use. If it's illustrative, practical, and clever; go ahead.

[Klaatu]

I think 99% of censorship is just concerning parents wishing to censor what their kids see and hear.
And 99% of that is probably sex and violence. That is somewhat understandable. But when it comes
to purely political censorship, I don't see how kids are affected. Case in point: I recall the 1960s cartoon
Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. There was much political satire in that show. But as a child, the sometimes
subversive politics (by 1960s standards) went right over my head, as the present-day show South Park's
political satire must also go over the heads of present-day 7-year-olds. The point being this: While visual
depictions of pornography might be rightfully restricted from the sphere of influence of Saturday morning
television programming, there is absolutely no reason in the world for speech and ideas which have
serious artistic, scientific, literary, or political value to be restricted from the domain of adult audiences.

United States Supreme Court case: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

[Klaatu]

"Replacing blatant expressions of racism with PC language is just a nice way to ignore social problems and ironically gives racists an excellent shield. All of us in the USA have surely seen how much racist ideas have thrived here in the mainstream since the big push for political correctness in the 90s. They've just learned to use code-words including making the very struggle against PC standards a code for racism."

I agree with this. Conservative radio and TV commentators like Limbaugh and Hannity continually find new
ways to attack our black president. I can't help thinking that there is some evil spirit of racism there, but
they are careful to use subtle language. But on the other hand, Limbaugh did proudly state that Colin Powell
only endorsed candidate Barack Obama because he is black. He stated this as though it were fact, not as just
his opinion. My question is, how in the blazes does this guy know what Powell thinks? Is Limbaugh a
mind-reader? I say let's give Limbaugh enough rope, and he will hang himself on his own fighting words.

[Il Medico]

Hell no! As a writer I hate when people try to censor my work. Edit out the "inappropriate part". The media does this to an extreme, the only exceptions seem to be IFC and Sundance (they're pretty good check them out, 550 on Direct TV and 113 on cable, I think). The government is even worse. I the school system the allow glaring historical inaccuracies as "poetic license" but I put one little double entendre in a story and I get a F! FUCK Censorship and those who support it. They are enemies of knowledge and therefor humanity.
No true leftist could ever support such oppression!
Captain Jack

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Censorship opposed freedom of information and thus knowledge. It is therefore suppressive to the human intellect and propagates reactionary and ignorant beliefs, not to mention lies and propaganda.

Censorship also opposed child pornography.

Should not lies and propaganda be censored?

I think this issue has to be viewed as how it effects society as a whole. We are social beings...the isolated individual responsible only to himself fundamentally is a bourgious fantasy.

[mikelepore]

United States Supreme Court case: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

I'm not so sure that Miller should really be called a free speech case, or, at least, not one of the most fundamental ones. That case involved a company that sent random people unsolicited junk mail, and when they opened it some people were annoyed to see they had been sent photos of people having sex. I think people being pestered by a bulk mailer is a different sort of case. The real problem is when the sender and the recipient are in agreement about the transaction, and the government still prosecutes, merely because the material is, in the government's opinion, "utterly without redeeming social value." (That last phrase was earlier adopted as the obscenity test by the Supreme Court when it upheld a state ban on the two-century-old novel Fanny Hill, in Memoirs v. Massachusetts.)

[Il Medico]

Censorship also opposed child pornography.

Should not lies and propaganda be censored?

I think this issue has to be viewed as how it effects society as a whole. We are social beings...the isolated individual responsible only to himself fundamentally is a bourgious fantasy.
Yes we are responsible to the community, however, if you censor speech, especially art, you invite totalitarianism. You need an educated public to discern the lies from truth. In order for socialism/communism to take hold we need to teach people the truth. That is how we censor. Woe to those that believe lies even when told the truth.The idiots preaching lies will censor themselves, look at Rush Limbugh.
Your friend,
Captain Jack

P.S Comrade you misspelled Bourgeois, but so do I some times! :lol:

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

For those who advocate censorship, I have one question. Has it really worked? For example, banning Nazi symbolism in certain parts of Europe does not seem too effective in squelching the far-right in those countries. Contemporary Austria is an exemplar of the failure of censorship.

Hey, if racism, sexism, and all the other unsavory "isms" could be wiped away with a simple brush of censorship in a capitalist or socialist society, then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, this simply is not the case.

[Glenn Beck]

Censorship, the desire to simply suppress certain ideas or concepts as if they do not exist should be contrasted with media responsibility and revolutionary agitation. I don't see it as a simple opposition between 'laissez-faire' free speech and absolute ideological scrutiny but rather I see a third option where society is obliged to agitate in favor of progressive thinking and spur active and engaged debate among society rather than simply supress wrong or retrograde ideas out of existence or provide a false ideologically 'neutral' playing field as seen in liberalism.

By the same token the media should not have the right to publish manipulative or false information as factual, rather speculation should be specifically branded as such. I think there should be strict standards against any kind of editorial bias in journalism.

[khad]

For those who advocate censorship, I have one question. Has it really worked? For example, banning Nazi symbolism in certain parts of Europe does not seem too effective in squelching the far-right in those countries. Contemporary Austria is an exemplar of the failure of censorship.
Child pornography is censored ie banned in most countries around the world.

I'd say it's worked better legalizing the shit.

[Klaatu]

Actually, gonzeau is correct. False or misleading information does need to be squelched. There is no socially reedeeming value in lies and fiction when it comes to news reporting. That goes for both sides of the political spectrum. Fiction belongs in novels, not news.

[Klaatu]

khad, you can't be serious! Why legalize that? That's absurd.:(

[khad]

khad, you can't be serious! Why legalize that? That's absurd.:(
What are you insinuating, or can you not read?

I am fed up with the laissez-faire libertarian attitude in this thread.

Quite hypocritical to advocate no censorship or standards whatsoever on one of the most heavily moderated forums on the web.

[Oktyabr]

Considering that the cappies have used it to distort the truth and wage a war of propaganda against leftists, I'd say its wrong. Stay away from anything that the cappies have used to harm the proletariat.

[Glenn Beck]

Even without formal censorship, any socialist society will need to construct a discursive hegemony to marginalize/destroy reactionary ideas (one of Gramsci's points that many of his readers neglect to acknowledge).

Definitely a vital and sadly neglected point, essentially a more parsimonious way of saying what I tried to in my previous post

[PeaderO'Donnell]

P.S Comrade you misspelled Bourgeois, but so do I some times! :lol:

That is not the only word I misspell.

My spelling is awful!

[Yazman]

Fuck censorship and fuck anybody who supports it - would-be, and actual, censors are my enemy.

[Klaatu]

"Child pornography is censored ie banned in most countries around the world.
I'd say it's worked better legalizing the shit."

This sounds like you are advocating legalization of child porn. Maybe this
is not what you had intended to say, but that's what it sounds like.

Did you actually mean to say:
"I'd say it's worked better THAN legalizing the shit." (?)

That would put you in opposition to legalization, as you most likely are.
I don't mean to start a fight here... Your post just seemed disturbing,
the way it was worded.:confused:

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I think censorship is necessary to prevent racist and discriminatory speech, or speech that calls for violence against innocent people.
Also censorship will probably be necessary in the times directly after the Revolution, to prevent the capitalists to return to power.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Child pornography is censored ie banned in most countries around the world.

I'd say it's worked better legalizing the shit.

It seems to me that child pornography is banned because people are generally morally appalled by it, not because they really know that censorship works.
Hell, there is still quite an abundance of child porn on the internetz. I think that tells you a little something about the efficacy of censorship in discouraging the production of child porn.

[Glenn Beck]

It seems to me that child pornography is banned because people are generally morally appalled by it, not because they really know that censorship works.
Hell, there is still quite an abundance of child porn on the internetz. I think that tells you a little something about the efficacy of censorship in discouraging the production of child porn.

Just because something still exists doesn't mean censorship and legal suppression are not effective. If child pornography were legal it would be as effortless to obtain as any other form of niche pornography on the internet. Even the most stringent legal restrictions will sometimes fail. Prohibitionist measures, even the shittiest ones like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s tend to succeed in reducing consumption although they cause significant social tension and can be undermined if a large enough portion of the population disagrees with the prohibition and actively tries to circumvent it. In the case of child pornography very few people approve of it and consume it, and its produced in some of the most unethical ways. What would be the point of legalizing it?

[Poppytry]

Instead of imprisoning people for their beliefs you should stick them on T.V and counter their argument with a decent professor. By doing that you show to your people that they have a right to question things.. but their argument maybe flawed or simply incorrect.. which the professor would prove.

By exiling, imprisoning or killing someone you make them a martyr to their cause. During the Cold War for example Soviet political prisoners and stuff were regarded as heroes in the west and received major publicity.

[RedSonRising]

Instead of imprisoning people for their beliefs you should stick them on T.V and counter their argument with a decent professor. By doing that you show to your people that they have a right to question things.. but their argument maybe flawed or simply incorrect.. which the professor would prove.

By exiling, imprisoning or killing someone you make them a martyr to their cause. During the Cold War for example Soviet political prisoners and stuff were regarded as heroes in the west and received major publicity.

The line of thought here is interesting; instead of an outright ban, a spokesman for an opposing view, especially if it is an obviously non-factual or ignorant argument that may lead to a bad impression in the youth or something of the sort.

I think instead of outright censorship, flexibility in media (such as television ratings) allow freedom of expression while allowing citizens to make choices about how "dirty" they want certain forms of art or media.

[Black Sheep]

I do not approve of censhorship.Which is why beating up fascists when they rally for marches/demonstrations is stupid.
Ideological and argumental struggle, yes.

[Klaatu]

They "beat up facists" out of fear. They have unfounded fears of anything they do not understand, especially when they have been spoon-fed the opposing philosophy all of their lives. They were taught that "socialism is evil," offering no proof of this (as if one can possibly prove such an idea.)