Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 9th, 2017, 12:51 AM   #21

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 12,979
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Dangerous speech. Climate denial, trickle down and peddling false stats about how private health insurance works are the three things where censorship would be greatly helpful in the modern context. US Court System's precedent is protesting WWI on the grounds that "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" and I think that's fair.
Oh goodness, even here we find people advocating the censorship of ideas that they don't agree with. Ban climate denial, ban Darwin denial, let's a establish a Ministry of Truth to check the details of arguments and statistics that people advance with regard to issues that a certain group of people have strong opinions on. Of course they would be yelping about censorship if anyone from the other side suggested anything similar with regard to their pet issues.

It is notable that such ideas always seem to come from the left nowadays. Often from people who say that they are necessary to oppose fascism!!

Last edited by Linschoten; November 9th, 2017 at 12:53 AM.
Linschoten is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 9th, 2017, 01:23 AM   #22

funakison's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 5,305
Blog Entries: 1

Speech that is likely to cause a breach of the peace, or incite illegal activity, surely they must be banned.
funakison is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 01:37 AM   #23

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 12,979
Blog Entries: 11

Yes, but it is necessary to be very cautious in the application of such regulations. Otherwise a group of people merely has to threaten disorder if a certain person with 'undesirable' views speak somewhere, and he is prevented from speaking because he will 'provoke' disorder; this becomes an insidious form of censorship.
Linschoten is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 01:47 AM   #24

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
And who decides what is 'dangerous speech'? There are already laws in place to protect against libel, slander, false advertising etc. along with the obvious public good of the fire in a crowded theatre scenario. What you propose is a restriction of the expression of ideas, an entirely different thing.
Yeah, and all of the things that Emperorof theBavarians mentioned could be defined as being in the public good. Unless you don't believe in them, of course.

Who's to say that claiming that Jewish influence is destroying the German state is not in the public good?
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 01:49 AM   #25

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
let's a establish a Ministry of Truth
We do have the Office of National Statistics. And you know what they say about statistics...

Seriously though, I don't have an issue with an organisation that fact-checks, as long as they only provide facts, and not opinion on cause or effect.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 01:56 AM   #26

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
It is notable that such ideas always seem to come from the left nowadays. Often from people who say that they are necessary to oppose fascism!!
Your comment here made me think - you're right, but it's also arguable that a lot of the fake news comes from the right. For example, during the recent Texas church shooting, one of the top trending stories was that the shooter was a radical alt-left and/or a Muslim. And if you remember the whole pizza pedophile ring thing during the US election.

I reckon that is because ideas that appeal to people prejudices are the ones that spread the fastest.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 02:30 AM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
Oh goodness, even here we find people advocating the censorship of ideas that they don't agree with. Ban climate denial, ban Darwin denial, let's a establish a Ministry of Truth to check the details of arguments and statistics that people advance with regard to issues that a certain group of people have strong opinions on. Of course they would be yelping about censorship if anyone from the other side suggested anything similar with regard to their pet issues.

It is notable that such ideas always seem to come from the left nowadays. Often from people who say that they are necessary to oppose fascism!!
Failure to censor climate denial could be a contributing factor to the end of humanity and certainly a relevant example of the "don't yell fire in a burning theater"(or exactly the opposite in this case). Difference between that and denying Darwinism is the danger that one incorrect. I'm refusing to acknowledge climate denial as an idea at all, that's the problem t's being treated like it's a political issue it isn't, it's a time sensitive emergency and if climate denial doesn't deserve to be censored there might not be anything that deserves to be.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is online now  
Old November 9th, 2017, 02:56 AM   #28

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 12,979
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Your comment here made me think - you're right, but it's also arguable that a lot of the fake news comes from the right. For example, during the recent Texas church shooting, one of the top trending stories was that the shooter was a radical alt-left and/or a Muslim. And if you remember the whole pizza pedophile ring thing during the US election.

I reckon that is because ideas that appeal to people prejudices are the ones that spread the fastest.
Fake news and biased reporting comes equally from both sides (although I think that more people on the liberal-left tend to be more unaware of their biases); it is merely that demands for restriction of free expression tend to come from the left nowadays rather than the right, i.e. the demand that people should not be allowed to express thoughts that they regard as false and undesirable.
Linschoten is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 03:27 AM   #29

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
Fake news and biased reporting comes equally from both sides (although I think that more people on the liberal-left tend to be more unaware of their biases); it is merely that demands for restriction of free expression tend to come from the left nowadays rather than the right, i.e. the demand that people should not be allowed to express thoughts that they regard as false and undesirable.
I think I will have to disagree about the prevalence of fake news, but I don't want to get too deep into it otherwise it will turn this thread into a political discussion.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 03:34 AM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
Fake news and biased reporting comes equally from both sides (although I think that more people on the liberal-left tend to be more unaware of their biases); it is merely that demands for restriction of free expression tend to come from the left nowadays rather than the right, i.e. the demand that people should not be allowed to express thoughts that they regard as false and undesirable.
If views are empirically false AND harmful yes think people shouldn't be allowed to spread things that aren't true. If you had good arguments to support those things you wouldn't have to rely on crying bias and saying everyone has a right to an opinion, nor would you want to. It's a safety mechanism to defend views that can't be defended on the merits and in American society it works, if you're in an argument and you something untrue or are lost, drop that line and the person arguing with you will usually back off. Same with the "well who are you to decide what's true or not".

I'm actually largely critiquing what the right would call "the Liberal media" in terms of allowing guests on to say incorrect things unchallenged on equal footing with people who are right on the issue and give impression it's an actual debate when it isn't. Alex Jones and "fake news" doesn't have the credibility that CNN and MSNBC have earned over the decades and they are using that credibility to mislead people in the name of easy access to leaders(which makes "journalism" a whole lot cheaper and easier) so they'll let people on to say just about anything.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; November 9th, 2017 at 03:39 AM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
acceptable, freedom, limitations, speech



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Freedom of Speech 1917 Harpo American History 1 April 26th, 2015 02:45 AM
Freedom of speech or freedom for idiocy. Vladimir1984 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 42 July 3rd, 2014 02:12 AM
Should we curb freedom of speech? Son of Cathal Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 47 August 6th, 2011 11:01 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.