Do you support censorship?

[arilando]

Do you support censorship and if so, under which circumstances?

[Comrade Samuel]

Yes but not in it's current form, it should be used to stop messages of raceism,nationalism and all other things that are counter revolutionary.

Today in America the FCC thinks that for some reason if little timmy sees grafic images of people being ripped apart by zombies it's all cool but if he hears "fuck" once he will be traumatized for life.

[Lanky Wanker]

If it stamps on a particular group of people's emotions/rights or is potentially harmful, then yeah. Problem is, some knobend will always come along and point out a contradiction in your opinion on censorship ("if you're against --- then why should --- be allowed to ---?!").

Boobs, vaginas and willies: no (unless it's blatantly pornographic)
Swearing: no
Violence/gore: depends on how extreme it is

These are the biggest ones generally, and you can see how it's hard to define specifically what should and shouldn't be censored.

[Dark Matter]

Pha do you support whenever you say anything against the government an pip sound will come?

I support that all the racist,fascist,nazis on the web are tracked down and then that they would be beat hard core style

[Lanky Wanker]

Pha do you support whenever you say anything against the government an pip sound will come?

I support that all the racist,fascist,nazis on the web are tracked down and then that they would be beat hard core style

Secret police time.

[arilando]

If it stamps on a particular group of people's emotions/rights or is potentially harmful, then yeah.
Do you mean this as making fun of people should be illegal, or what exactly do you mena?


Violence/gore: depends on how extreme it is
Why?

[Dark Matter]

Anarchism: a system involving no government, invented by the Sex Pistols.

oh my fucking science wtf is wrong with you is this an joke? :laugh:

[pluckedflowers]

I don't know, but I was recently reading that Washington Post article on bankers whining inconsolably about not being able afford the matching set of yachts they wanted or whatever because of budget cuts, and it occured to me that it would be a shame not to give them such a venue after a revolution in which we take all their shit. I certainly don't want to miss those lulz.

[piet11111]

In favor of censoring racism nationalism sexism and most internet meme's especially pony's.

Its greatly amusing to compare the death race 2000.

0ZLYEbkykCI

with its modern remake

fdwH5kMDtMY

The remake is much more violent but it does not have so much nudity in it so its far more acceptable to show.

The American prudeness in movies is baffling when you look at the tolerance for violence along with the commodification of women.
Yes nakedness then can be considered commodification too but the implied sexism today is something i would consider worse then just having some naked women on screen.

[Anarchrusty]

I do not support censorship, except for reactionaries, nazi's and anti-feminists, pornography and hate speech.
For some of them I would be lenient after the revolution, such as having them go through re educational programs. Nazi's, no. Hang 'em higher!

[arilando]

I do not support censorship, except for reactionaries, nazi's and anti-feminists, pornography and hate speech.
For some of them I would be lenient after the revolution, such as having them go through re educational programs. Nazi's, no. Hang 'em higher!
are you saying you would ban pornography?

[Anarchrusty]

It depends on what kind of pornography. If it is exploitative towards women, yes I would.

[arilando]

It depends on what kind of pornography. If it is exploitative towards women, yes I would.
What exactly do you mean with that?

[Registered User]

It depends on what kind of pornography. If it is exploitative towards women, yes I would.

ALL pornography is exploitive towards women

[piet11111]

What exactly do you mean with that?

Probably the most obvious example would be rape porn.

[Blake's Baby]

I support free speech in any and all cases barring defamation (i.e. intentionally lying with intent to damage the reputation of some individual or group). The Luxemburgist in me considers this self-evident.
...

Th Luxemburgist in me considers it self-evident that snuff-movies and images of children being tortured for the sexual gratification of others shouldn't be part of our culture even after the revolution.

I'm sure you'd disagree.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ugh, pathetic how people feel their opinion is so superior they have the right to censor other's.


Yes but not in it's current form, it should be used to stop messages of raceism,nationalism and all other things that are counter revolutionary.

In practice this means everything except Marxist-Leninism will be banned.


If it stamps on a particular group of people's emotions/rights or is potentially harmful, then yeah.

"people's emotions"? Really? Fuck them. You take offense, so the problem lies with you. Grow a thicker skin.


I do not support censorship, except for reactionaries, nazi's and anti-feminists, pornography and hate speech.
For some of them I would be lenient after the revolution, such as having them go through re educational programs. Nazi's, no. Hang 'em higher!

Oh wow. "I do not support censorship, but I want to increase the amount of censorship significantly anyways". Yep, you want to censor more than is currently censored in the Western world and many other countries, yet you claim to be against censorship? Basically, people like you would ban the majority of people of free speech. Censor anti-feminism? The majority of people I meet on the internet is anti-feminist. Reactionaries? That's everyone who does not agree with you, broadly.


re educational programs

That is not scary at all. Nazis want to do the same with you. Now tell me, how long would it take for you to give up your ideals in favour of nazism in a re-educational camp? What? You mean you don't just give up your beliefs if you are imprisoned and the prison ward says what you need to believe?

Weeeeeeiiird


It depends on what kind of pornography. If it is exploitative towards women, yes I would.

That is such a joke.

[Lanky Wanker]

It depends on what kind of pornography. If it is exploitative towards women, yes I would.
Probably the most obvious example would be rape porn.

If we are actually talking about rape porn, maybe we could say if it's not exploitative/degrading towards PEOPLE. Guys get tied up and butt-fucked by dominatrixes in leather and have their balls abused, just in case we forget this. Sure, it may be more common in porn targeted towards males, but I'm sick of this "women are so precious and we should forget about men" crap.

[Tim Cornelis]

Probably the most obvious example would be rape porn.

That's stupid. Rape porn is a victimless act. What's next, banning rape fantasy in the bedroom of private individuals? You do realise that rape porn also includes the act of men being abused by women? If a woman likes and is sexually excited by the idea of a consensual rape fantasy, you want to take that freedom away from her? (same for men).

[arilando]

Probably the most obvious example would be rape porn.
Why should rape porn be illegal?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

If I were lucky enough to oversee a socialist nation, I would protect everyone's free speech, except when that free speech would be used to incite terrorist/counterrevolutionary acts against the state, the people, or the socialist economy or when it would be used to encourage a return to capitalism. Racism and sexism will be restricted in public speech (except when used in appropriate comedic situations), and obviously any speech praising fascism or capitalist oppression would warrant censorship. Pornography . . . I really cannot think of any logical censorship. Censorship for pornography that encourages violence will naturally be handled, considering the people's state will own all national distribution methods.

[arilando]

If I were lucky enough to oversee a socialist nation, I would protect everyone's free speech, except when that free speech would be used to incite terrorist/counterrevolutionary acts against the state, the people, or the socialist economy or when it would be used to encourage a return to capitalism. Racism and sexism will be restricted in public speech (except when used in appropriate comedic situations), and obviously any speech praising fascism or capitalist oppression would warrant censorship. Pornography . . . I really cannot think of any logical censorship. Censorship for pornography that encourages violence will naturally be handled, considering the people's state will own all national distribution methods.
What about amateur porn produced at home, how would you censor that?

[Guy Incognito]

If I were lucky enough to oversee a socialist nation, I would protect everyone's free speech, except when that free speech would be used to incite terrorist/counterrevolutionary acts against the state, the people, or the socialist economy or when it would be used to encourage a return to capitalism. Racism and sexism will be restricted in public speech (except when used in appropriate comedic situations), and obviously any speech praising fascism or capitalist oppression would warrant censorship. Pornography . . . I really cannot think of any logical censorship. Censorship for pornography that encourages violence will naturally be handled, considering the people's state will own all national distribution methods.

So...less free than now in the U.S.? We can currently post on this site, it's not blocked in any way. We can watch our porno's and our horror movies alike. We can do all of these things. If the people are not free (and they would not be free if what they say aloud is policed) then we have failed in communism. You're simply trading masters.

[Tim Cornelis]

If I were lucky enough to oversee a socialist nation, I would protect everyone's free speech, except when that free speech would be used to incite terrorist/counterrevolutionary acts against the state, the people, or the socialist economy or when it would be used to encourage a return to capitalism. Racism and sexism will be restricted in public speech (except when used in appropriate comedic situations), and obviously any speech praising fascism or capitalist oppression would warrant censorship. Pornography . . . I really cannot think of any logical censorship. Censorship for pornography that encourages violence will naturally be handled, considering the people's state will own all national distribution methods.

I love how you are the second person who does not see the blatant and obvious contradiction between your introduction and the rest of your story.

"Oh no, I support free speech, except for X, Y, Z, Q". You want to increase censorship in comparison to what you are allowed to say now, and yet you say you support free speech? "Nope, I'm fine with free speech, except for those who disagree".

[Franz Fanonipants]

yes, specifically your posts

[Luc]

I think when the person said "rape porn" they meant footage of real people being raped and posted for pornographic purposes

[ВАЛТЕР]

Let people say and express themselves as they wish so long as they aren't bringing harm to others.

The more you try to repress something the more the person will want it. Let people be free to think and express themselves as they wish so long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

As for nazis and the likes, I would stick them in labor camps because fuck them.

[arilando]

yes, specifically your posts
lolwut?

[Rooster]

If we are to extend democracy the furthest it can go and remove the state, then how the fuck can censorship even take place? Who's going to enforce it? People will just have to learn to be people. Don't like watching gore films? Then don't watch them. How can anyone take a counter revolutionary seriously when you're living in socialism? It would be like King Cnut commanding the tide not to come in.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In the narrow sense of the OP's question some things ought to be censored after the revolution, i.e. child pornography. More broadly, I am a Luxemburgian and believe that freedom has to include freedom for those with whom we disagree to express their opinions lest the revolution fall victim to dictatorship. The line ought to be drawn to forbid counter-revolutionary organizations, not to proscribe individual thoughts or opinions. Otherwise, we might end upon in a society where "thought crime" is punished.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

OK, I never said I would suppress violence in media, normal pornography, or all free speech, but I think that women deserve the simple respect of not having men all over the nation seeing extremely violent pornography and learning from it (and I am a man!). I know that most men can tell the difference between porn and real life, but come on, some things just go too far and impede on the revolutionary leftist battle against the sexual objectification of women. Also, free speech is a right that will never be taken away from honest people who do not advocate violence against socialism. Yet, the remants of the former classes will work tirelessly organizing terrorist acts against the socialist state and people. Have you guys ever heard of the terrorist acts committed against Cuba by groups like the Alpha 66, which are not even based in the Cuban homeland? Terrorists need to be oppressed, and so do their rhetoric.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

And pardon me, I forgot to tell you guys that I would not agree with a state that prosecutes people for every little controversial thing they say. Absolutely not. Also, I would not agree with a state controlling comedic speech.

[arilando]

OK, I never said I would suppress violence in media, normal pornography, or all free speech, but I think that women deserve the simple respect of not having men all over the nation seeing extremely violent pornography and learning from it (and I am a man!). I know that most men can tell the difference between porn and real life, but come on, some things just go too far and impede on the revolutionary leftist battle against the sexual objectification of women.
I dont think so. As long as it is completely voluntary or artificially made (with animation etc) there is nothing wrong with any kind of porn.

[Tim Cornelis]

OK, I never said I would suppress violence in media, normal pornography, or all free speech, but I think that women deserve the simple respect of not having men all over the nation seeing extremely violent pornography and learning from it (and I am a man!). I know that most men can tell the difference between porn and real life, but come on, some things just go too far and impede on the revolutionary leftist battle against the sexual objectification of women. Also, free speech is a right that will never be taken away from honest people who do not advocate violence against socialism. Yet, the remants of the former classes will work tirelessly organizing terrorist acts against the socialist state and people. Have you guys ever heard of the terrorist acts committed against Cuba by groups like the Alpha 66, which are not even based in the Cuban homeland? Terrorists need to be oppressed, and so do their rhetoric.

Who are you to say what an adult man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman can and cannot do on camera? I just searched for male on male rape porno, and guess what, it exists. So what if two adults (or more) enjoy the fantasy of being raped?

male fake rapes male = okay
female fake rapes male = okay
male fake rapes female = banned
??

Also, banning "terrorist rhetoric" is a slippery slope. And pretty pointless also. If socialism is good, the majority will recognise it because it improves their lives, no amount of rhetoric can change that. If a bunch of rhetoric can persuade people who are already living in socialism that it's a bad thing, then socialism failed and lost its legitimacy.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Who are you to say what an adult man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman can and cannot do on camera? I just searched for male on male rape porno, and guess what, it exists. So what if two adults (or more) enjoy the fantasy of being raped?

male fake rapes male = okay
female fake rapes male = okay
male fake rapes female = banned
??

Also, banning "terrorist rhetoric" is a slippery slope. And pretty pointless also. If socialism is good, the majority will recognise it because it improves their lives, no amount of rhetoric can change that. If a bunch of rhetoric can persuade people who are already living in socialism that it's a bad thing, then socialism failed and lost its legitimacy.

Terrorists do not need to be part of the mainstream that agrees with socialism, they are, almost as a rule, outside the majority. That is why terrorism is called terrorism, not revolution. Just look at the Republic of Cuba, where most people agree with the socialist system, except, of course, the terrorists and the former oppressing classes that left the island because they knew the tables were about to turn and the guns were going to be pointed at them for once.

[dodger]

only a bravo or a fool would OP this subject. Here goes anyway.....we have self-censorship, here in the real world. Any editor worth his salt knows(nose) what is expected of him/her. What sort of press do we want...well it will be the press we deserve. Whatever the social organization. We could ask people what they want, you might get a nasty shock, depending how honest they were. I could say the last thing I want or need is to be well informed with up to date truthful reporting, over my porridge. I never bought a paper, always picked them up in the carriage, quality, financial, tits and bums, sport...the journalists I have known all said one thing . People buy the paper that confirms the opinion they already hold dear. How depressing is that?!?:crying:

[Brosip Tito]

I am fully opposed to censorship. Especially in a workers' state... How can a state controlled by the masses hide something from the masses unless the political power/state power is not in their hands.

To quote the great revolutionary, Rosa Luxemburg:
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of “justice” but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when “freedom” becomes a special privilege. ~ The Russian Revolution, Chapter 6 "The Problem of Dictatorship".

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No to censorship. Yes to fighting against counter revolutionary organizations. Let people say and think what they want. If they perpetrate actual crimes against individuals or the revolution, bring them to justice.

[Questionable]

It seems to me that in a healthy workers' state, censorship would be democratic and self-regulating. What's this, some ex-bourgeious fascist trying to print pamphlets advocating a return to capitalism? The workers refuse to print it. Simple as that. And if they do decide to print it and support it, find out what material conditions are making them behave this way and correct them.

If harsh situations were to occur, some state-regulated censorship may be inevitable, but only with democratic input from the proletariat would I be comfortable with it.

[blake 3:17]

I find it pretty unbelievable that revolutionary leftists support any forms of censorship, including hate speech. These laws are almost always used against us. Assaults on democracy hurt those who need it the most.

[Comrade Samuel]

I love how you are the second person who does not see the blatant and obvious contradiction between your introduction and the rest of your story.

"Oh no, I support free speech, except for X, Y, Z, Q". You want to increase censorship in comparison to what you are allowed to say now, and yet you say you support free speech? "Nope, I'm fine with free speech, except for those who disagree".

By that logic you seem to support entirely unrestricted freedom of expression which sounds like a great idea, that is some until a few racial slurs escalate into riots in the streets, the media is allowed to lie and keep the masses ignorant, exploitable fools and people are threatening one another so much that it just keeps the whole world in a constant state of terror.

It's not about not about putting away everyone who happens to disagree with us, it's about making sure civilized society can survive long enough for us to one day reach a point of world-wide communism.

[Prometeo liberado]

Ask stalinator if he supports censorship.

[Caj]

I do not support censorship, except for reactionaries, nazi's and anti-feminists, pornography and hate speech.
For some of them I would be lenient after the revolution, such as having them go through re educational programs. Nazi's, no. Hang 'em higher!

Condensed version: I support free speech for everybody that agrees with me and my personal morality.


OK, I never said I would suppress violence in media, normal pornography, or all free speech, but I think that women deserve the simple respect of not having men all over the nation seeing extremely violent pornography and learning from it (and I am a man!). I know that most men can tell the difference between porn and real life, but come on, some things just go too far and impede on the revolutionary leftist battle against the sexual objectification of women.

With the abolition of the wage system, pornography, like any other form of labor, would cease to be exploitation and objectification. Even under capitalism, there is no basis for the censorship of pornography, so long as it is consensual and between adults. It's like any other form of capitalistic labor; it's exploitation, but to illegalize it, and thus deprive the worker of this form of labor, would only make his or her situation worse.


entirely unrestricted freedom of expression which sounds like a great idea, that is some until a few racial slurs escalate into riots in the streets, the media is allowed to lie and keep the masses ignorant, exploitable fools and people are threatening one another so much that it just keeps the whole world in a constant state of terror.

Yes, because free speech is what leads to these problems. :rolleyes:



This is how I think we should deal with the suppression of counter-revolutionary views: Instead of using coercion, execution, and "re-education camps" as Anarchrusty suggested (seriously, wtf?), let's simply deprive reactionaries of the means to communicate their reactionary ideas to a large audience. As socialists, we advocate the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat. The means of production is indispensable to the propagation of ideas. Simply deprive reactionaries the use of the means of production.

[Questionable]

I find it pretty unbelievable that revolutionary leftists support any forms of censorship, including hate speech. These laws are almost always used against us. Assaults on democracy hurt those who need it the most.

But shouldn't it be a tactical choice? I'm not going to say something like "Free speech is an unbreakable principle that must never, EVER be violated or bad things will happen" because that would be non-materialist (I'm not implying you do that, but I've personally met others with this logic). I support anti-censorship under a bourgeois state because it always serves the ruling class, but in a workers' state, there could arise circumstances where censorship of counterrevolutionary sentiments could further our cause.

[Ele'ill]

I don't approve of censorship.

[AdamWebster]

Censorship is wrong in all its forms, no matter the subject. Yes, racism and nationalism is wrong, but banning it won't solve the problem. Instead of making it a crime, or even simply blocking, educate these people in why it's wrong. Censoring it makes you as bad as they are, because you too think you're opinion is better than everyone elses.

[l'Enfermé]

An interesting work by Marx that touches on this subject. On Freedom of the Press (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1842/free-press/).

Some quotes from Chapter 5, Censorship:

The censorship law, therefore, is not a law, it is a police measure; but it is a bad police measure, for it does not achieve what it intends, and it does not intend what it achieves.

If the censorship law wants to prevent freedom as something objectionable, the result is precisely the opposite. In a country of censorship, every forbidden piece of printed matter, i.e., printed without being censored, is an event. It is considered a martyr, and there is no martyr without a halo and without believers. It is regarded as an exception, and if freedom can never cease to be of value to mankind, so much the more valuable is an exception to the general lack of freedom. Every mystery has its attraction. Where public opinion is a mystery to itself, it is won over from the outset by every piece of writing that formally breaks through the mystical barriers. The censorship makes every forbidden work, whether good or bad, into an extraordinary document, whereas freedom of the press deprives every written work of an externally imposing effect.

If the censorship is honest in its intention, it would like to prevent arbitrariness, but it makes arbitrariness into a law. No danger that it can avert is greater than itself. The mortal danger for every being lies in losing itself. Hence lack of freedom is the real mortal danger for mankind. For the time being, leaving aside the moral consequences, bear in mind that you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns! And what do you lose with a free press?

And so on. I was going to copy-paste more quotes but it's best to read the whole thing if you're interested, it's worth it.

I just have to agree with Marx.

[gorillafuck]

when conflict increases, censorship will increase. it has nothing to do with whether your ideology espouses support for it or not. censorship arises from the tendency of the dominant order to maintain itself.

[Rooster]

The people who seem to be holding onto the idea of some sort of censorship seem to be espousing some sort of patronising idea towards the proletariat. I hope this isn't the case and that I'm just reading this wrong.

[Caj]

The people who seem to be holding onto the idea of some sort of censorship seem to be espousing some sort of patronising idea towards the proletariat. I hope this isn't the case and that I'm just reading this wrong.

That was my impression too. It kind of seems like they're saying censorship is necessary because the proletarians are stupid and gullible and thus susceptible to reactionary ideas.

[Questionable]

That was my impression too. It kind of seems like they're saying censorship is necessary because the proletarians are stupid and gullible and thus susceptible to reactionary ideas.

Reactionary movements have lead the proletarians astray before. I'm definitely not saying they're "stupid," but fascists can make their ideas sound very good, and in the current society the average working-class member is probably too busy maintaining their livelihood to study the difference in politics.

[Brosip Tito]

That was my impression too. It kind of seems like they're saying censorship is necessary because the proletarians are stupid and gullible and thus susceptible to reactionary ideas.
It's the authoritarian idea that the Vanguard and the workers' state is separate from the working masses. That the working class need not involve itself with the work of it's leadership.

i.e. it is dangerous.

[Caj]

Reactionary movements have lead the proletarians astray before. I'm definitely not saying they're "stupid," but fascists can make their ideas sound very good, and in the current society the average working-class member is probably too busy maintaining their livelihood to study the difference in politics.

We're talking about censorship in a post-revolutionary society. Class consciousness is a precondition for revolution.

[Drosophila]

To some degree. I don't think things like Fox News should be allowed to exist.

[gorillafuck]

The people who seem to be holding onto the idea of some sort of censorship seem to be espousing some sort of patronising idea towards the proletariat. I hope this isn't the case and that I'm just reading this wrong.I'll repeat myself.


when conflict increases, censorship will increase. it will not matter whether your ideology espouses support for it or not. censorship arises from the tendency of the dominant order to maintain itself.this is why in the past, liberals, anarchists, and every sort of social libertarian has engaged in censorship and authoritarian methods.

[Brosip Tito]

To some degree. I don't think things like Fox News should be allowed to exist.How would a corporate news network ran by capitalists exist in a society where all capital has been expropriated into the hands of the proletariat, and the mode of production changed to a socialist one.

If you are talking within current capitalist society, I will disagree. Censoring one group of capitalists over another only provides them the idea of martyrdom. Their opinion will come out, and those who believe it will believe it. Censoring anyone suggests that you fear it, or that people are too stupid to educate themselves (though, the FOX audience suggest that they are).

[Questionable]

We're talking about censorship in a post-revolutionary society. Class consciousness is a precondition for revolution.

But is it safe to assume that reactionary attitudes won't survive shortly after the revolution? For instance, what if sexuality prejudice was still left over in a post-revolutionary society, and the majority of the proletarians decided to outlaw it. Should this take place?

I'm not trying to be condescending to anybody. These are honest questions, and I'm sure most of the people here know better than me :confused:

[~Spectre]

No extra-weapons for the capitalist state.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I believe is Socialist Constitutionalism in which the Basic Law of the DotP would provide for the protection of GLBT rights and the rights of other minorities against majoritarian oppression. As a Luxemburgian and to my mind the dictatorial aspect of the DotP is strictly limited to prevent the bourgeoisie from restoring capitalism. Other than that IMO the DotP ought to be democratic, much more democratic that bourgeois constitutional democracies with respect to protecting human rights.

[dodger]

Truth the first casualty of war...we saw that in Vietnam. Coventry was allowed to be bombed in WW2 because to defend it would have alerted the Germans we had broken their Electra Machine. Making high blown statements about freedom and worthy pronouncements about an uncertain future is empty talk. If we want to take responsibility then we'll want to be served by a media that respects us that we can contribute to. We are after all literate, we can read, more importantly we can write. Some more lucid than others. For sure due to our work hobby's or life experience...or just a knack for the written word should make our press more vibrant. The collective approach is paramount, only then will we truly get to grips with the problem. At present our media is frankly dire. We know that. It has deteriorated it has to be seized and knocked into something worthwhile.

[danyboy27]

I think censorship for what its worth is a desesperate and useless act, especially today with internet, no matter how hard a governement might try to clamp down on something, it will fail.

The best way decrease the impact something will have on society is to make it legal and not for profit.

Has long has an action does not harm anyone and is performed by conscenting mature people, i dont think there is a legitimate reason to ban it.

[Blake's Baby]

...
The best way decrease the impact something will have on society is to make it legal and not for profit.

Has long has an action does not harm anyone and is performed by conscenting mature people, i dont think there is a legitimate reason to ban it.

Righht, but, in the cases I gave, they were specifically not performed by consenting and mature people. Should the torture of children and the unwilling killing of people for entertainment be allowed?

[revhiphop]

Not unless it's censoring capitalists, fascists, or racists.

[Lanky Wanker]

Do you mean this as making fun of people should be illegal, or what exactly do you mena?


Saying things like "fuck faggots" on anti-faggot news channels should be banned/censored is what I mean.



Why?

Well a kid seeing some guy's hand get cut off probably does have a small effect on some kids y'know, but then again I'm expecting the "it's the parents' responsibility" response which makes sense.


Anarchism: a system involving no government, invented by the Sex Pistols.

oh my fucking science wtf is wrong with you is this an joke? :laugh:


Yes, it's a joke lol.



"people's emotions"? Really? Fuck them. You take offense, so the problem lies with you. Grow a thicker skin.


Are you serious about this one? If someone is offended by a good old fashioned "fuck you", I couldn't care less. However, if, for example, people with anorexia are being humiliated publicly, I don't see why that should be tolerated. Your solution is to make vulnerable people feel even weaker by telling them to grow a thicker skin? This sounds like it's going down the same road as the 5,000 page thread we recently ended on homophobic insults.

[Drosophila]

How would a corporate news network ran by capitalists exist in a society where all capital has been expropriated into the hands of the proletariat, and the mode of production changed to a socialist one.

If you are talking within current capitalist society, I will disagree. Censoring one group of capitalists over another only provides them the idea of martyrdom. Their opinion will come out, and those who believe it will believe it. Censoring anyone suggests that you fear it, or that people are too stupid to educate themselves (though, the FOX audience suggest that they are).

Fox News is the largest and most popular "news" source in the USA. It also broadcasts complete lies, and is designed to serve reactionaries. Are you really saying that criminalizing it wouldn't do anything? I highly doubt that.

And yes, I do fear it to some extent for this reason.

[GoddessCleoLover]

We will have to overcome Faux News in order to make the revolution, and when we do we ought to turn Faux News over to its workers, and I do not mean its petit-bourgeois talking heads, rather the blue collar personnel who maintain the physical plant. They should be empowered to form a workers' council to establish a news network that reflects the views of its workers, that is to say its new owners since the Murdoch family et al will learn the meaning of the term expropriation.

[#FF0000]

nah.

i especially wouldn't support it today in a capitalist world, giving the governments and regulatory bodies the power to shut us down as easily as anyone else.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

ALL pornography is exploitive towards women
Even gay male porn? :lol:

There's nothing inherently exploitative about a visual representation of sexuality involving consenting adults, although under a system of commodification and misogyny it can be exploitative.

[#FF0000]

ALL pornography is exploitive towards women

no.

[JeVousAimeGuillotine]

It would hypocritical to limit free-speech. Are we not free to express our leftist views, even when it is widely unpopular with the majority of the capitalist world? The fact is--as leftists, we have a responsibility to secure the rights of humanity. That includes every basic necessity required. Every human should be guaranteed the right to his opinion. The fact is, if socialism is a good system like most of us suspect, we will not need to censor others in order to protect. Socialism should be able to stand on its own merits.

I think that those of us here who favor censorship over reactionaries after the revolution are putting our hatred of capitalism ahead of our collective strive for democracy. We leftists believe in true democracy--of the people, by the people and for the people. We believe in bringing down the capitalist class. Will the revolution be violent? Possibly. But if it is a violent war, let the capitalists scream out! They will scream out and be drowned in the noise of revolution.

/end dramatic rant

[Regicollis]

Any society that calls itself democratic should be very cautious with censorship.
The only exceptions where I can see legitimate reasons to ban expressions are child pornography (because making it requires doing harm to children), snuff films and the more right to privacy (it is nobody's business who you sleep with or what personal problems you have).

Maybe a kind of age recommendation system on films and video games to guide parents could be justified but even that comes with its own set of problems (like producers censoring themselves to get lower age rating).

I have a question to those in favour of censoring racism, homophobia, violent films, pornography, counter-revolutionary expressions etc. Since all forms of censorship requires a censor you must think that somebody is more qualified than yourself to to decide what you read, what music you listen to and what films you see. Who is this person? Who should be given that power?

There are many vile and stupid opinions out there but I don't think we need to limit freedom to fight them. I am confident that we as socialist have - if not the right answers - then at least the most right answers. We don't need to play dirty to convince people of our cause. We can win the public opinion by good arguments alone.

[Questionable]

It would hypocritical to limit free-speech. Are we not free to express our leftist views, even when it is widely unpopular with the majority of the capitalist world? The fact is--as leftists, we have a responsibility to secure the rights of humanity. That includes every basic necessity required. Every human should be guaranteed the right to his opinion. The fact is, if socialism is a good system like most of us suspect, we will not need to censor others in order to protect. Socialism should be able to stand on its own merits.

I think that those of us here who favor censorship over reactionaries after the revolution are putting our hatred of capitalism ahead of our collective strive for democracy. We leftists believe in true democracy--of the people, by the people and for the people. We believe in bringing down the capitalist class. Will the revolution be violent? Possibly. But if it is a violent war, let the capitalists scream out! They will scream out and be drowned in the noise of revolution.

/end dramatic rant

I don't mean any offense to anyone, but stuff like this just sounds way too idealistic for me. We can preach all we want about the virtues of democracy and unbreakable principles, but at the end of the day, we should think of things in terms of tactical choices. I'm with Trotsky in thinking that the only thing that is truly "moral" is whatever furthers the cause of the working-class.

And maybe I'm going to be outcast for saying this, but the proletarians are not infallible. In their current state, they need education and leadership, or else they will fall for the tricks of reactionaries. Obviously they're our first concerns, but there may be times where they are wrong, and their actions must be guided.

[Guy Incognito]

Terrorists do not need to be part of the mainstream that agrees with socialism, they are, almost as a rule, outside the majority. That is why terrorism is called terrorism, not revolution. Just look at the Republic of Cuba, where most people agree with the socialist system, except, of course, the terrorists and the former oppressing classes that left the island because they knew the tables were about to turn and the guns were going to be pointed at them for once.

That's just it, you say "terrorists" as if it were a fact of life. Who's to determine what would be a "terrorist" statement or thought or speech? Would it be up to whatever beurocrat is present at the time, like it is after the Patriot Act was signed in the U.S.?

[Caj]

the proletarians are not infallible. In their current state, they need education and leadership, or else they will fall for the tricks of reactionaries. Obviously they're our first concerns, but there may be times where they are wrong, and their actions must be guided.

The leadership you are advocating is far more fallible than the self-guidance of the proletariat.

[danyboy27]

Righht, but, in the cases I gave, they were specifically not performed by consenting and mature people. Should the torture of children and the unwilling killing of people for entertainment be allowed?

Those kind of publications should be restricted, not banned.
For exemple, psychologist and other specialists might need to get access to those for research projects and the people working in the justice system might also need those to find the culprit of someone who committed some nasty crime.

[Regicollis]

Righht, but, in the cases I gave, they were specifically not performed by consenting and mature people. Should the torture of children and the unwilling killing of people for entertainment be allowed?

Torture and killing should not be allowed whether you publish it or not. The real crime is the act - not that somebody documents it. What about going after the killers and torturers? If anything the fact that a criminal is publicising a recording of his crime is only going to make it easier to catch him.

We should not forget that the documentation of killing and torture can be very beneficial. What really changed public opinion on the Vietnam war was that people could see what a war really looked like right on their TV screens.

[Yazman]

I don't support any form of censorship. Not even of nazis, fascists, etc. They are usually ridiculous enough on their own without anybody having to censor them. I don't think it's our job (or our right) to decide for other people what they can and can't see, or what they can and can't handle seeing. Besides, sometimes it is important that people see information that they might not necessarily want to see. It can be eye-opening.

Shit, I mean we are in a position of being censored ourselves as revolutionary leftists, our views and everything we stand for is incredibly censored, we are the last ones who should be advocating censorship.

"Beware he who would deny you information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Cool little quote, but a relevant one, from a game I once played (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri).

[Guy Incognito]

I don't support any form of censorship. Not even of nazis, fascists, etc. They are usually ridiculous enough on their own without anybody having to censor them.

"Beware he who would deny you information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Cool little quote, but a relevant one, from a game I once played (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri).

Free Drone Victory. Every time.

[Franz Fanonipants]

lolwut?

caring about liberal freedoms is reactionary

[Drowzy_Shooter]

fuck no

[arilando]

Righht, but, in the cases I gave, they were specifically not performed by consenting and mature people. Should the torture of children and the unwilling killing of people for entertainment be allowed?
The production of such should be illegal, but distribution and/or possession, no.

[JeVousAimeGuillotine]

I don't mean any offense to anyone, but stuff like this just sounds way too idealistic for me. We can preach all we want about the virtues of democracy and unbreakable principles, but at the end of the day, we should think of things in terms of tactical choices. I'm with Trotsky in thinking that the only thing that is truly "moral" is whatever furthers the cause of the working-class.

And maybe I'm going to be outcast for saying this, but the proletarians are not infallible. In their current state, they need education and leadership, or else they will fall for the tricks of reactionaries. Obviously they're our first concerns, but there may be times where they are wrong, and their actions must be guided.
I wouldn't say it is idealistic to protect the right to free speech. And who knows? Maybe free speech would have to be limited in order to protect the rights of the majority, post-revolution? But in the past, limiting free speech becomes a slippery slope of censorship that often can lead to a failed revolution.

You have to figure that in the United States, at least, there is a much bigger obsession with free speech than in other countries. Therefore, the public desire for free speech wouldn't be as vital if the revolution were to take place in, say, China, where free speech is already limited. Here in the United States, free speech would have to be universal in order to win over future comrades. So, when I advocate for universal free speech in the post-capitalist society, I am taking into consideration the realpolitik of the time, as well as my personal views on the vitality of free speech. I occasionally write in broad, figurative, metaphorical terms, and so I'm sorry if that came across as idealistic. However, the real substance of what I was trying to say is that free speech may HAVE to be limited in order to fulfill the interests of the majority, but I'm all in favor or TRYING to protect it for the sake of democracy. As a utilitarian, I hate to use government to do anything to censor the people. But I'm not naive; I realize that the bourgeoisie will be fighting back with all their might, and that in order to destroy them, we may have to use unconventional methods, such as censorship.

In all honesty, this is a very emotional topic for socialists. We occasionally have to put aside our preconceived values, and replace them with the empirical and logical evidence for what will create a successful socialist society. That can be very difficult to do. Has anybody else struggled with this?

[arilando]

caring about liberal freedoms is reactionary
Any point of view different from mine is reactionary.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Any point of view different from mine is reactionary.

idk it doesnt seem like you have any kind of reasoning behind that pov

otoh burning ulcers about what the bourgeois deign to extend of their privilege to workers is pretty stupid and smacks of actually buying into the importance of a system where deigning to extend rights is a Thing

[Questionable]

The leadership you are advocating is far more fallible than the self-guidance of the proletariat.

I really don't know what type of leadership I advocate just yet. I'm only saying that the viewpoint of absolute zero censorship, no matter what, seems a bit idealistic to me. In addition, it seems a bit hypocritical because they're insisting on having a "true democracy," yet a certain level of censorship will occur regardless when the DotP takes power, even if it's simply workers refusing to print a newspaper that slanders their movement. The question is what form the censorship will take.

I'm only saying that we should view these things from a tactical angle, not a moralistic one. Our cause is the furthering of the proletariat, and we can't disregard anything on the grounds of morality.

[arilando]

idk it doesnt seem like you have any kind of reasoning behind that pov

otoh burning ulcers about what the bourgeois deign to extend of their privilege to workers is pretty stupid and smacks of actually buying into the importance of a system where deigning to extend rights is a Thing
Can someone translate this to english please?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

caring about liberal freedoms is reactionary

I think its a mistake to reduce free speech to a liberal freedom or liberalist philosophy. The problem with traditional liberalism stems from the fact that it views people as "islands" and personal property holders with absolute rights and isolating them from their social situation. In other words, the problem with traditional liberalism is its individualism and the assumptions which support that. However, the issue of free speech on the contrary is the only way for society to have honest conversations on what should be done and why people believe what they believe. Free speech is a way to attack reactionary beliefs, and the lack of free speech is used by reactionaries to maintain old structures.

Most liberals believe in the right to have an abortion, this doesn't mean all women who demand rights over their body are somehow accepting a flawed liberal ideology!

[Caj]

workers refusing to print a newspaper that slanders their movement.

I actually advocated this kind of "censorship" earlier in this thread. Since the workers will control the means of production, they will inevitably hold control over the propagation of ideas. This would allow the workers to simply deprive reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries of the means to propagate reaction and counter-revolution.

The kind of censorship I am opposing is the kind that relies on surveilance, coercion, execution, "re-education camps," and all of the other bourgeois methods of censorship that will be rendered unecessary with common ownership of the means of production.


I'm only saying that we should view these things from a tactical angle, not a moralistic one. Our cause is the furthering of the proletariat, and we can't disregard anything on the grounds of morality.

Of course. I just don't think there are any sound tactical grounds for supporting conventional censorship in a socialist society. In fact, I'm not even sure if it would be possible for such censorship to coexist with socialism.

[MotherCossack]

only a bravo or a fool would OP this subject. Here goes anyway.....we have self-censorship, here in the real world. Any editor worth his salt knows(nose) what is expected of him/her. What sort of press do we want...well it will be the press we deserve. Whatever the social organization. We could ask people what they want, you might get a nasty shock, depending how honest they were. I could say the last thing I want or need is to be well informed with up to date truthful reporting, over my porridge. I never bought a paper, always picked them up in the carriage, quality, financial, tits and bums, sport...the journalists I have known all said one thing . People buy the paper that confirms the opinion they already hold dear. How depressing is that?!?:crying:

Bejaysus....dat dere dodger....he be a wise one make no mistake....to be sure....
On the button gov'nor...! on the button.

about censorship... yeah right....erm...
i'd like to think that i am opposed to censorship, in theory....free speech and self-expression etc etc
but it is tricky...
i wouldn't fancy my kids being exposed to a constant barrage of propaganda. vulnerable, gullable and innocent [for now] and i feel a responsibility to protect them for as long as possible.

i wish i could believe that the species had some kind of natural self regulating ability to behave in a socially cooperative way.....at least a bit.......
but no....sadly....you have to spell it out ..... keeping it all as basic as possible....rules are good.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I don't think that we ought to support censorship in a bourgeois society as a matter of first principle. OTOH if workers' ask us about censorship in a post-revolutionary society we can certainly assure them that some things are beyond the pail. No one has a "right" to produce child pornography or rape pornography (actual, not simulated) since those are inherently criminal acts, and involvement in the production thereof makes one an accessory to the underlying crime. IMO no person has a right to to literally yell fire in a crowded theatre or store since such an utterance carries with it an actual and proximate danger of creating a stampede that could serious bodily injury or death to human beings. So I agree that "keeping it all as basic as possible...rules are good" as long as the rules are informed by Marxian principles, and thanks are due the poster who cited several quotes from Karl Marx, who seemed to have a keen grasp of the issue.

[arilando]

I actually advocated this kind of "censorship" earlier in this thread. Since the workers will control the means of production, they will inevitably hold control over the propagation of ideas. This would allow the workers to simply deprive reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries of the means to propagate reaction and counter-revolution.

The kind of censorship I am opposing is the kind that relies on surveilance, coercion, execution, "re-education camps," and all of the other bourgeois methods of censorship that will be rendered unecessary with common ownership of the means of production.
But with the internet, would't that kind of censorship be useless?

[Yazman]

I actually advocated this kind of "censorship" earlier in this thread. Since the workers will control the means of production, they will inevitably hold control over the propagation of ideas. This would allow the workers to simply deprive reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries of the means to propagate reaction and counter-revolution.

The kind of censorship I am opposing is the kind that relies on surveilance, coercion, execution, "re-education camps," and all of the other bourgeois methods of censorship that will be rendered unecessary with common ownership of the means of production.



Of course. I just don't think there are any sound tactical grounds for supporting conventional censorship in a socialist society. In fact, I'm not even sure if it would be possible for such censorship to coexist with socialism.

The kind of censorship you support is widespread throughout our society as it exists and is used against us. We should NOT be advocating it. Self-censorship is an insidious form of censorship that manages to trick people into thinking it's ok - "it's not REALLY censorship guys, don't worry, it's not official!"

It is itself "one of the bourgeois methods of censorship". We see it all the time in the media refusing to acknowledge our existence among other things.

Not suggesting we should be supporting reactionaries, but imo it's not cool to encourage publishers to practice self-censorship. Because you're still getting censorship, it's just easier to make people think it's kocher.

[Questionable]

The kind of censorship you support is widespread throughout our society as it exists and is used against us. We should NOT be advocating it. Self-censorship is an insidious form of censorship that manages to trick people into thinking it's ok - "it's not REALLY censorship guys, don't worry, it's not official!"

It is itself "one of the bourgeois methods of censorship". We see it all the time in the media refusing to acknowledge our existence among other things.

Not suggesting we should be supporting reactionaries, but imo it's not cool to encourage publishers to practice self-censorship. Because you're still getting censorship, it's just easier to make people think it's kocher.

But if the workers are the ones practicing, then it IS kosher, isn't it? This is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, where censorship is held as this unholy thing that is wrong no matter who's doing it. I can understand why you wouldn't want a vanguard in charge of censorship, but to say that even the workers shouldn't be allowed to use it seems to come right back around to what you're opposing (The workers being told what to do).

Unless you're talking about censorship is it is in a pre-revolutionary society, in which, yes, it's always used against us.


But in the past, limiting free speech becomes a slippery slope of censorship that often can lead to a failed revolution.

I presume you're referring to Marxist-Leninist states. There were objective material conditions that led to their decay and rejection of individual freedoms. Believing that the Soviet Union went bad merely because they didn't respect the God-given principal of freedom of speech is placing the ideal before the material conditions, and is what I mean when I call things "idealistic."

[Caj]

But with the internet, would't that kind of censorship be useless?

Perhaps. To be honest, I don't think censorship will be necessary after the revolution, but if it is, I see no reason why the kind of censorship I mentioned wouldn't suffice.


The kind of censorship you support is widespread throughout our society as it exists and is used against us. We should NOT be advocating it.

I don't see why we shouldn't use something simply because the bourgeoisie has used it against us. The bourgeoisie uses the state against us. Does this make it wrong for us to use the state against them?


Self-censorship is an insidious form of censorship that manages to trick people into thinking it's ok - "it's not REALLY censorship guys, don't worry, it's not official!"

I don't think I was advocating self-censorship.


Not suggesting we should be supporting reactionaries, but imo it's not cool to encourage publishers to practice self-censorship. Because you're still getting censorship, it's just easier to make people think it's kocher.

I agree. I don't think censorship will be necessary, but if it is, there is no reason start executing reactionaries or sending them to "re-education camps."

[blake 3:17]

But if the workers are the ones practicing, then it IS kosher, isn't it? This is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, where censorship is held as this unholy thing that is wrong no matter who's doing it. I can understand why you wouldn't want a vanguard in charge of censorship, but to say that even the workers shouldn't be allowed to use it seems to come right back around to what you're opposing (The workers being told what to do).

What about the case of Salt of the Earth? Unionized projectionists were ordered not screen it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth

[Neoprime]

No I don't support freedom of speech, I support Substantiality of Speech, Morality, Assembly, and Expression. Meaning you say mostly what you want as long as it back up by reality, truth, and has meaning, most socalist should be for this since it is Anti-Abstraction.

[Os Cangaceiros]

otoh burning ulcers about what the bourgeois deign to extend of their privilege to workers is pretty stupid and smacks of actually buying into the importance of a system where deigning to extend rights is a Thing

That is true to an extent, but I doubt people on here would scoff and say "ah, just the bourgeoisie revealing that there never was any true freedom to begin with, so who cares!" when congress passes the "Drag Communist Sympathizers Out Of Their Homes And Shoot Them In The Head" Act of 2013. A certain amount of bourgeois freedom is more condusive to effectively organizing opposition.

[gorillafuck]

That is true to an extent, but I doubt people on here would scoff and say "ah, just the bourgeoisie revealing that there never was any true freedom to begin with, so who cares!" when congress passes the "Drag Communist Sympathizers Out Of Their Homes And Shoot Them In The Head" Act of 2013.that act was a moral victory

[Rafiq]

I support censorship when it benefits the proletarian class.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

It really depends on the topic at hand. While I do support censorship of nationalism, rascism, and anti-revolutionary topics, "morally corrupt" material like Pornography is fine largely due to porn stars doing their work voluntarly. Something that is done voluntarily is not exploitave.

[Caj]

material like Pornography is fine largely due to porn stars doing their work voluntarly. Something that is done voluntarily is not exploitave.

No wage labor is "voluntary." All wage labor is exploitative.

Though I'm not sure whether or not you're referring to censorship of pornography in a future classless society (when wage labor would be abolished and pornography would be truly voluntary) or under bourgeois society (where pornography is exploitation, censorship of which would only further harm the workers involved).

[Klaatu]

I think we should be censoring lies and misinformation (such as what is spewed out by Fox News)