Re: RE: Censorship or No?
zenfisher said:
It is up to the owners and moderators of the board. They have to determine at what point a poster goes to far and makes them legally culpable. ( sorry Coz) Therefore it is up to them to determine what is and isn't allowed. It may not be fair or promote freedom of expression, but they are investing the time, money and effort to allow us to express our opinions.
Personally, I think anything that expresses hatred of another whether it be an individual or a race should be disallowed. Perhaps a randomly selected panel of, say thirty members, could be asked if they would vote a member that goes beyond the dictates of social decorum. Within that a vote of 66% would decide the alleged defenders fate.
I brought up the topic from a more philosphical aspect, Zen. I really am interested in where people stand on the issue. I have never given the concept of censorship a lot of thought beyond the old surface "book burning is bad" until I was faced with drawing the line. Then I realized the line is not static.
As for voting ... yi. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but any committee relied upon to make that kind of decision is too cumbersome for this format. By the time you got more than a couple people to participate the whole subject would be passe.
I find committees good for setting policy but not enforcing them.
The more I read about censorship, the more interested I become in the topic. The more I think about it, the less I support it. An interesting quote I got from the previous link I posted:
A classic argument for protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right is that it is essential for the discovery of truth. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."
Being able to put out unpopular beliefs, no matter how distasteful some people find them, is a method of discovering truth. The person posing the thought has to logically defend the position, and the resistance the idea is met with will either prove or disprove it in the microcosm of the forum society.
I think that goes a long way to disarming bigotry and hate. When something is taken out of the dark and examined, it loses much of its power. Most people at this board are reasonable and humane. They would present good arguments against racism or hate and I think that does more toward stopping it than ignoring the problem.
Of course that's assuming the poster is willing to discuss. Anyone who just wants to spew garbage needs to be sent on their way, or at very least, ignored completely. There's a big difference between dialogue and diatribe. And even if the poster's mind is never changed, at least the participants are giving the concept thought.
As a dyke, the more I can discuss with those who think I'm a bad dog, the less devoted to their hate they become. Or if they stick to their hate beliefs, they reveal their true nature to anyone else around and lose credibility. I think that's a good thing.
Anyway, I am finding peoples' position on the topic most interesting!!
