Moral Value of Private Censorship

LD Saunders

I've noticed that I have had some comments deleted by this forum and at least one post. I recognize that the owners of this forum are allowed to delete and ban people as they see fit. This is basically part of a person's property ownership rights. If I own my home, then I have the right to determine, for the most part, who can enter my home, and what they may say to me, before I decide to kick them out of my home.

So, on the one hand, we have private property rights and a long line of philosophical arguments on why a property owner should be allowed to determine who can use their property, which justifies the owners of this forum deleting comments. However, on the other hand, since this is a forum that is somewhat public and it involves the exchange of ideas, and arguments, there does seem to be a freedom of speech argument that also comes into play. When an owner of a philosophy forum deletes comments, the owner is then taking sides in a debate, and how is it fair to simply delete a comment? That's sort of like having a debate where one silences the opponent. That's not a debate, and it's certainly not philosophy, and this forum holds itself out as a philosophy forum.

Not only is there a freedom of speech issue, but also an issue regarding virtue ethics. What is the purpose of a philosophy forum and is that purpose consistent with deletions and banning and censures? In some cases, there would be a consistency, like if a post or comment made a threat to another member, but as long as the post contained an argument? Then I think the act of censorship undermines the purpose of the forum, and is immoral.

In any event, I refuse to participate in any philosophy forum that deletes my comments, especially without explanation. I simply have no desire to be unfairly silenced while debating.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Baden

↪LD Saunders

It's a moderated forum as almost every other philosophy forum is. You knew that when you signed up. Or should have. But no, that doesn't mean we take sides in debate, it means we moderate according to the guidelines. And there's no reason that both sides of a philosophical debate cannot be carried out without breaching the guidelines. Which guidelines are, in fact, in place to facilitate productive debate. Though maybe you didn't read them or you would likely have noticed the concluding paragraph.

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

Jake

Personally, I am TOTALLY OUTRAGED that the mods refuse to publish the utterly brilliant ground breaking posts which I never submitted because I'm not smart enough to write them.

BC

↪Baden

You didn't address the question of whether and why something he wrote was ensured (if it was censored).

Terrapin Station

Then I think the act of censorship undermines the purpose of the forum, and is immoral. — LD Saunders

I agree with you. I'm a free speech absolutist and I don't at all agree that free speech is only a legal issue, which is usually the opposing track taken. Free speech is a social control issue. Legal restrictions on speech are just one fashion of exercising the relevant social control, but by no means the only fashion. It's not as if the social control in question is morally kosher just in case it's not legislatively-oriented, as if the issue is solely legality, as if for any x, it's okay just in case it doesn't socially fall under the realm of law, as if there's something inherently problematic with law qua law but not any behavior we mjght be talking about outside of a legal/illegal context.

Baden

The idea that our not allowing morons, Nazis, trolls etc to have free rein to disrupt conversations here, drag them off topic, and spread stupidity and poison all over the place with their 'arguments', is immoral and undermines the forum is incredibly wrong-headed. If you want to foster quality, you need to enforce standards.

Baden

You didn't address the question of whether and why something he wrote was ensured (if it was censored). — Bitter Crank

His objection is general and he should have read the guidelines and he's gone anyway. If anyone has a specific issue with something being deleted and tells us what that is, we'll look into it.

Terrapin Station

The idea that our not allowing morons, Nazis, trolls etc to have free rein to disrupt conversations here, drag them off topic, and spread stupidity and poison all over the place with their 'arguments', is immoral and undermines the forum is incredibly wrong-headed. If you want to foster quality, you need to enforce standards. — Baden

That's an awfully charitable take on the average post on the board. :grin:

Jake

You didn't address the question of whether and why something he wrote was ensured (if it was censored). — Bitter Crank

I have no idea of course, but if the poster thinks this is a free speech issue that might be a clue.

Jake

If you want to foster quality, you need to enforce standards. — Baden

Agree completely. Forum culture can be strange. On many forums the mods will be absolutely hysterical about spam (no argument there) but then they let users turn the entire site in to such a trash pile that you almost wish somebody would post some spam, as it would be an improvement.

Moral Value of Private Censorship

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions