I think that’s too sweeping. I know when I’m being unfair, manipulative or dishonest. I know when I’m wrong. — Brett

If you did something wrong, did you not justify it at the time?

If you did something wrong, did you not justify it at the time? — frank

Justification could be thing that was wrong, or maybe how much justice was wrong, maybe punishment not fit crime.

Censorship is sign of weakness and mistrust of community intelligence.

Censors fear truth, censors fear rationality and compromise.

If the object of censoring cannot speak then censor can frame narrative however they want and claim justice when really it is just that everyone has right to defend and appeal censorship.

Be skeptical of story where only one side of narrative is available.

It's like if two men have race and one cross finish line before other man. If man who came last binds and gags other man and hides him and expects to be given first place prize at award ceremony because of winners absence and claim winner said horrible things about everyone and the competition then should we take at face value or try and find winner to corroborate?

Censorship is sign of weakness and mistrust of community intelligence.

Censors fear truth, censors fear rationality and compromise. — Spirit12

It is hard to see the free speech value of "kill all the $$$ (pick you favorite minority or ethnic group).
It is hard to see the free speech value of denial of the moon landing, the efficacy of vaccines or the reality of climate change. It may be necessary to impose some limits on speech to ensure a society cohesive enough and rational enough to function.

I agree, there is epistemic responsibility to try and control output of dangerous idea. However, is very demanding to try and read minds beforehand and stop dangerous idea getting out all the time.

If man is sharing dangerous idea because true then he should be willing to face consequences of speaking truth to power and being a shot messenger. Take vaccines or climate change problem. Do you think it economically realistic to preempt and censor every denier? Censorship is used often but why not for these things when so much evidence shows antivacs are hurting themselves and others as are climate change deniers?

Is because of who is doing censoring.

Rules and laws might not be arbitrary but sometimes people who create them are not right people. When not right people, censorship is enemy of public. In both where is and isn't being implemented.

Internet has made mad men more crazy in that it gives them giant megaphones. When only a few people can hear and see the crazy you don't have to censor. When people are removed from the crazy and read or hear of sane sounding middleman then the idea change from harmless to dangerous.

I was just saying that there may be some grand truth regarding which kind of censorship is righteous and which kind is evil. — frank

There is left to doubt when censorship is bad - an oppressive regime is usually lurking in the shadows. That leaves us with what is viewed as "good" censorship and that as I pointed out is only to snuff out the spark that ignites a conflagration. The dry tinder for a fiery disaster exists in every and all societies just waiting for poorly considered words to ignite it. The fabric of society is usually strained to breaking point; saved only by the better judgment of a few sensible people. This tension makes the peace we enjoy nothing more than an uneasy truce in a society fractured by ideology, race, religion, etc. In other words "good" censorship while effective in preventing large scale violence, is actually a symptom of an underlying social illness - discrimination based on whatever that is that divides societies.

In other words "good" censorship while effective in preventing large scale violence, is actually a symptom of an underlying social illness - discrimination based on whatever that is that divides societies.[/quowomen ]

Differences and similarities both it seems. How often do the ex slavers call the ex enslaved dangerous predators despite history of them being the predators. A guilty projection maybe.

I see two dividing forces that both stem from prejudice. Othering or rejecting evidence of similarity. If a person thinks they are better than everyone else, then someone who is similar to them is percieved as being like that for bad reasons because nobody could possibly be as good as them right?

Is why men are intimidated by intelligent women, why everyone is intimidated by intelligent children. I have more examples but I think my point is clear. — TheMadFool

It is hard to see the free speech value of "kill all the $$$ (pick you favorite minority or ethnic group).
It is hard to see the free speech value of denial of the moon landing, the efficacy of vaccines or the reality of climate change. It may be necessary to impose some limits on speech to ensure a society cohesive enough and rational enough to function.

It is not the speech that is valuable; it is the freedom of speech that is valuable.

Both censorship and freedom of speech will be abused, but we must pick which abuse would be preferable. Freedom of speech allows for the distortion of truth, but censorship allows for the distortion of truth and its suppression.

There is left no doubt when censorship is bad - an oppressive regime is usually lurking in the shadows. That leaves us with what is viewed as "good" censorship and that as I pointed out is only to snuff out the spark that ignites a conflagration. The dry tinder for a fiery disaster exists in every and all societies just waiting for poorly considered words to ignite it. The fabric of society is usually strained to breaking point; saved only by the better judgment of a few sensible people. This tension makes the peace we enjoy nothing more than an uneasy truce in a society fractured by ideology, race, religion, etc. In other words "good" censorship while effective in preventing large scale violence, is actually a symptom of an underlying social illness - discrimination based on whatever that is that divides societies. — TheMadFool

I understand what you're saying.