However, on the same coin, if fascist, Nazi, racist, and other hateful speech are censored, their toxic can be contained. — Purple Pond
Basically, if some hate group wants to promote their message it is at least likely that this is because they think it will have some effect which furthers their agenda. Since most people in society don't want their agenda furthered, it's seems reasonable to prevent the action likely to cause it to be. — Isaac
The thing is that we, as a group, will never attain the status of being "critical thinkers", achieve a discourse where people are so informed, knowledged and critical that they can spot what is true and what is false, what is acceptable and what isn't. That is a fact.One could say that we, as a group, haven't attained the status of critical thinkers as yet. So, provisionally, to err on the side of caution, censorship is necessary. — TheMadFool
I heard somewhere, teach/learn how to think, rather than what to think. — TheMadFool
with pejorative you mean prerogative? Let´s make this question less abstract and more real. Are you in favour of banning Quran and hadiths, or at least their use in public libraries and schools, and also public apologies of these texts? Quran has hundreds of verses calling to violence and hate towards non believers; it says explicitly that God is okay with slavery, and with disciplining women that refuse to obey. It contains twice as many verses against Jews as the Mein Kampff. Hadiths, as they are more specific, are also much more explicit in their promotion of all kind of violence.In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech?
In the private domain, do you agree that what can be said is the owner's pejorative? — Purple Pond
:gasp: Yes.with pejorative you mean prerogative? — DiegoT
No because I don't think Qurans are generally harmful. You say the Quran incites violence, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I think banning religious books will do more harm than good.Are you in favour of banning Quran and hadiths, or at least their use in public libraries and schools, and also public apologies of these texts? Quran has hundreds of verses calling to violence and hate towards non believers; it says explicitly that God is okay with slavery, and with disciplining women that refuse to obey. It contains twice as many verses against Jews as the Mein Kampff. — DiegoT
Nazism came to power because of limited free speech not because of free speech. When your party controls the airwaves, controls the conversation, and what is allowed to be talked about, you become the very thing you claim you want to prevent.Freedom of speech is important in that censorship can be abused by powerful institutions as a tool to disenfranchise certain people, making them less influential. If liberals and their ideas such as freedom, democracy, human rights are censored, their messages will not reach everyone. However, on the same coin, if fascist, Nazi, racist, and other hateful speech are censored, their toxic can be contained. — Purple Pond
The question is, What do you mean by "harmful"? Nazi Germany had a robust economy before Hitler started WW2. The society wasn't harmed by fascism. Jews were, and any other group that wasn't pure German.Some speech harms society, some speech hurts society, most speech does neither. The question is who should stem the flood of harmful speech? Well, it depends on the domain. In the public domain, the government can do something about harmful speech. But here's the key question, can we trust them? Governments have been known not to act in the interest of the people. As for the private domain (such as here in the philosophy forum), it's really the owners pejorative prerogative. Your house, your rules. For example, I see nothing wrong with YouTube banning Alex Jones form their website.
So it comes down to two questions:
In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech?
In the private domain, do you agree that what can be said is the owner's pejorative prerogative? — Purple Pond
No because I don't think Qurans are generally harmful. You say the Quran incites violence, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I think banning religious books will do more harm than good. — Purple Pond
Nazism came to power because of limited free speech not because of free speech. — Harry Hindu
The question is, What do you mean by "harmful"? Nazi Germany had a robust economy before Hitler started WW2. The society wasn't harmed by fascism. Jews were, and any other group that wasn't pure German. — Harry Hindu
Indeed! And the first victims are those related to humour and parody, because no totalitarian regime can prosper if people can see it through the lense of humour. Cartoons, comic strips, stand-ups and casual jokes are the first communications to be censored when a totalitarian movement wants to impose itself on society. The effect of censorship, what is really about, is too things: to impede the process of rational processing of propaganda at the individual and social level; and to impose a single meaning to words, symbols and actions among the infinite possible meanings that people can assign to them. For example, to ban the swastika in Germany served to the purpose of keeping this universal symbol of life and renewal, attached to his former Nazi use. When feminists ban beauty contests, they impose the meaning of celebrating female beauty and youth as something inherently degrading, banning all other possible meanings.Nazism came to power because of limited free speech not because of free speech. When your party controls the airwaves, controls the conversation, and what is allowed to be talked about, you become the very thing you claim you want to prevent. — Harry Hindu
The thing is that we, as a group, will never attain the status of being "critical thinkers", achieve a discourse where people are so informed, knowledged and critical that they can spot what is true and what is false, what is acceptable and what isn't. That is a fact.
And there are many reasons for this, not only because some people aren't thinkers. — ssu
that´s Athena, who´s having this as her January personal cause... It should not be a cause, but something we take for granted, but here we are, back in the dark Modern Age! — DiegoT
And Jews aren't part of the society? Further, how is the Nazi destruction of civil liberties and personal property not harmful? Like come on, everything you're saying is making hyper-idealized scenarios the reason why one ought to maintain free speech — MindForged
(Ecology is a word coined by a Nazi) — DiegoT
Go back and read what I wrote. I never claimed that Nazis came to power ONLY by limiting free speech. They used violence against anyone who spoke negatively about the party. THAT is limiting free speech. My response was to the narrow scope of the OP where limiting hate speech - like fascism - actually works against the freedom of speech. Many political parties have used violence, incite unrest and take advantage of people's fears, not just Nazis. Many political parties want to restrict personal freedoms, not just Nazis. Many politicians refer to their opponents as hostiles, which is inciting violence and unrest here in the US.I don't even agree with dropping free speech but why would you say something so clearly false as a means to support free speech? Nazis came to power using street violence, inciting fear and unrest, and taking advantage of a more fragile state of the public mind after the first War and a terrible economy. Not because muh free speech was limited. — MindForged
Again, go back and read the post. That isn't what I was saying. I said the best way to combat Nazism is by letting them express their ideas and then expose their ideas to criticism. Not only that, but it's always nice to be able to know what your neighbors think and where they stand.And Jews aren't part of the society? Further, how is the Nazi destruction of civil liberties and personal property not harmful? Like come on, everything you're saying is making hyper-idealized scenarios the reason why one ought to maintain free speech — MindForged
In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech? — Purple Pond
In the private domain, do you agree that what can be said is the owner's pejorative prerogative? — Purple Pond
So let's say you run a restaurant in town and I'm your competitor, so I send out mailings and publish advertisements saying that you serve dog meat, you molest children, and you use all your profits to fund terrorists groups. You go bankrupt, your kids get thrown out all their sports programs, you can't find any other job, and you and your family are shunned.I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. — Terrapin Station
I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. — Terrapin Station
which genocide are you referring to? Are you by any chance doing a Molyneux and adding up the estimated deaths that occurred in India over a millennia and counting them as one genocide? Or is there a different one you're thinking of? — Mr Phil O'Sophy
With regards to terrorism, what does a western dogmatic christian, or angry atheist, have to do if they want to kill loads of muslims? Do they necessarily have to just go outside and hunt them down? Or can they just join the army, get paid for it, get told they're a hero and earn a pension and a badge? — Mr Phil O'Sophy
Ok and whats your source? how were those numbers estimated and by whom?
Who said Indians didn't matter. My issue is with a bogus claim. I'm not saying muslims haven't caused atrocities in the past, just that the one you're mentioning has weak foundations in terms of the sources. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
Don't be silly of course people care about the christians. How were there christians there in the first place if Islam is just by default murdering them? If what you say is true, there would never have been the opportunity for so many christians to establish themselves in the Middle East in order for these atrocities to occur. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
same argument could be made as was done with the christians. If the islamic position is by default to murder them, how were they able to establish such high numbers in the region in the first place? — Mr Phil O'Sophy
It is very important to recognize good things in your enemies. You must not reduce your adversaries to stereotypes, or reject things because they came to you from the wrong hands. Republicans reject climate change measures because Dems talk about it all the time; Democrats reject the defense of the national borders because Trump wants to improve them. This is irrational thinking. The most evil person or movement can do good things and say the truth sometimes, as much as saints and heroes have their share of mistakes.Like Dasein, and other vocabulary introduced by everyone's favorite Nazi. Another of those good things Nazis did. — Ciceronianus the White
Have you read the quran and hadiths? because if you haven´t, your belief is just a belief. The vast majority of Nazis never participated in any crime. Many of them did not even live in Germany, such as Henry Ford. Even today, most neonazis are law-abiding citizens. Do we conclude the Nazi ideology is not so harmful after all?No because I don't think Qurans are generally harmful. You say the Quran incites violence, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I think banning religious books will do more harm than good. — Purple Pond
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.