Censorship - Yes or No?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?

2

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets ot decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?[/quote]

How about finding the appropriate website/forum to post your thoughts…it really shouldn’t be at T-Nation.com’s political forum should it?

3

I’m absolutely certain I don’t want you being the judge of what is pornographic or obscene.

4

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?[/quote] Hey Stevieo,I dont know how old you are ,but your great highly regarded avatar dude ronnie reagan,believed in sensorship.I remember watching a white house press conference,when i was laid off from my job during the wonderful reagan yrs. when the economy was so strong and no one was hiring.during the press conference a reporter asked a question about the iran-contra ? deal.reagan ignored his question and called on someone else .the reporter waited and after a few more questions asked the same simple question and reagan told him JUST SHUT UP and still ignored his question.then in a later press conf. he screwed up and refered to himself as a democrat.I thought damn ,this guy is not only arrogant but he doesnt even know what party hes in nowdays…everybody loved him even his own children.

5

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?[/quote]

You see, now this is exactly one thousand percent better. In nowhere in the above post was anyone told how he or she is going to hell unless they think exactly like you.

Although, technically, what we were talking about wasn’t censorship, per se, it was ignoring you. If we were to somehow censor you, you wouldn’t have the opportunity to post at all. And that’s not what we wanted, we were looking to save ourselves from your zany repetitive born-again christian shenanigans.

So, in closing, let me say again: MUCH BETTER!

PS Censorship, generally speaking = bad.

6

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?[/quote]

Whatever is said by anybody is going to be disliked by somebody. So I strongly believed that one’s likes or dislikes should have no bearing on the matter. I am adamantly against censorship on general principles, but I can see where the need for it may arise.

What constitutes obscenity and pornography is highly subjective, but overt threats, graphic depictions of violence and sex, and incitements to violence should all be subject to control on a public forum.

No, I don’t think religious topics should be censored at all. Nor do I think they are being censored in any meaningful way on this website.

However, just as one should not, perhaps, start a discussion on the pros and cons of micronized creatine monohydrate in the Sex and the Male Animal forum (unless it had something to sex, of course), one should probably not discuss religion, unless of course the topic is political in nature.

Christians and Muslims killing each other in Maluku? Definitely political. The way to salvation through Jesus Christ? Probably not so political.

Censorship means the official suppression of materials judged to be unacceptable. In the case of the government, national press and national broadcasting companies, obviously the people in charge of those organizations get to decide. Obviously, thier decisions are based on the standards of decency of society at the time. I am old enough to remember when you could not say “God damn” on television. Now we have ads for “Girls Gone Wild”. No moral judgement, just an observation that times change.

In the case of T-Nation, the moderators and administrators decide whether to allow or disallow a picture that they judge to be pornographic in nature (generally speaking, nipples and genitalia are censored). Overt threats are usually disallowed as well.

I once started a gun control thread on the politics forum because a thread in Get a Life, originally talking about handguns in general, had dissolved into an argument about gun control. I was asked by one of the moderators to do this, and the post I had submitted to the Get a Life thread was not posted. I did not consider this censorship, however, just good moderation.

So the mods generally do a good and fair job. I am not aware of them deliberately censoring any topic for personal reasons, only disallowing certain content if it is in violation of the website’s official decency standards.

On an official level, the same folks as mentioned above. On a more general level, you and I do. I have the right to say whatever I want, and you have the right to either agree, disagree, ignore me or stomp off in disgust. And vice versa.

The Constitution states that Congress is not allowed to make a law which would establish religions, restrict the free practice of religions, restrict speech, the press, or peacable assembly. It does not address the rights reserved by private companies to restrict speech that is not in line with their policies.

Obviously, there are limitations to this. Newspapers may not publish libel, nor may I slander you on the street. I may not post fliers advocating the violent takeover of the government, nor may I recruit members into my space cult, which preaches cosmic enlightenment through naked Twister parties involving magic mushrooms and multitudes of oiled 18-year-old high school cheerleaders.

And no, I am NOT actually starting such a cult, so nobody ask if they can join.*[quote]

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?[/quote]

I tend to agree with that sentiment. Let us keep in mind, however, that most people tend to bristle when confronted by a pushy salesman, even in the marketplace of ideas.

  • Unless, of course, they happen to be 18-year old high school cheerleaders.
7

It is a privately owned website.

That means they could not censor you if they wanted to, and the Bill of Rights is a non issue.

8

[quote]orion wrote:
It is a privately owned website.

That means they could not censor you if they wanted to, and the Bill of Rights is a non issue.[/quote]

Well, actually, I think you are incorrect here. Here is why. I know that if you have a privately owned piece of property – like Rockefeller Center here in New York City. Rock Center says that NOBODY can hand out flyers about anything – religious or otherwise on their property. Now, if they did allow, let’s say, people to hand out flyers advertising cell phones, but didn’t allow me to hand out my Gospel tracts, that would be illegal. It would fall under discrimination based on religion was is illegal.

So you are correct that the Bill of Rights probably doesn’t apply, but illegal discrimination is still not allowed under our laws. That is the reason you don’t see the mods taking down my threads. They know better than that. Otherwise, if your “privately owned website” argument would hold water, privately owned businesses could discriminate in their hiring practices based upon race, religion, national origin, etc. – which is clearly illegal.

However, in this thread I wanted to discuss censorship in general terms, since it is obvious that there are guys here that are in favor of it, well when it comes to religion at least.

Therefore I want to hear the parameters as I asked for in my OP. Perhaps someone would give this an honest try.

9

[quote]ron33 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye? Hey Stevieo,I dont know how old you are ,but your great highly regarded avatar dude ronnie reagan,believed in sensorship.I remember watching a white house press conference,when i was laid off from my job during the wonderful reagan yrs. when the economy was so strong and no one was hiring.

during the press conference a reporter asked a question about the iran-contra ? deal.reagan ignored his question and called on someone else .the reporter waited and after a few more questions asked the same simple question and reagan told him JUST SHUT UP and still ignored his question.then in a later press conf. he screwed up and refered to himself as a democrat.I thought damn ,this guy is not only arrogant but he doesnt even know what party hes in nowdays…everybody loved him even his own children.

[/quote]

(1) You avoided answering any of my questions that I posed in my OP.

(2) Even if you are correct on this incident with Reagan – so what? That is not censorship. That is someone holding a press conference and not answering a question – oh,what a surprise…a politician that doesn’t answer every question!

Censorship is the deliberate elimination or withholding of information based upon certain criteria. My OP is trying to get at what people believe about this subject, since from the myraids of posts it is clear to me that there are many guys here which do believe in censorship. I am just trying to figure out the parameters.

How old am I? What does that have to do with anything? I am probably a lot older than you…

10

It’s not censorship. You’re not prevented from posting anything you want.

People will simply choose not to read it or reply to it.

You have your freedom of speech; we have our freedom of choice.

Do you hate us for our freedom SteveO?

11

[quote]pookie wrote:
It’s not censorship. You’re not prevented from posting anything you want.

People will simply choose not to read it or reply to it.

You have your freedom of speech; we have our freedom of choice.

Do you hate us for our freedom SteveO?

[/quote]

This is clearly it. A minority will be either suppressed, ignored or ridiculed. You may hold the answer to my salvation man (i need salvation) but i don’t want what you offer. That’s not censorship.

Censorship is stopping what you write (like if moderators didn’t allow your posts). This does happen. This is probably a good thing, if it prevents unnecesary harm. Good and bad will be suppressed, but, of course, these words are subjective, meaning ‘i like that’ or ‘dislike that’.

12

[quote]pookie wrote:
It’s not censorship. You’re not prevented from posting anything you want.

People will simply choose not to read it or reply to it.

You have your freedom of speech; we have our freedom of choice.

Do you hate us for our freedom SteveO?

[/quote]

I think you missed the point of SteveO’s post in favor of getting a dig in. Your post should have been directed at ron33 - who evidently thinks we have a constitutional right to have our questions answered in a press conference.

This is an interesting discussion.

You have those on here who, for quite some time now, think they have a right to be heard. There is no such right guaranteed in the constitution.

Ignoring or shouting someone down is not censorship. Ignoring a question in a press conference is not censorship.

This site’s mod staff does practice what amounts to censorship, IMO. But it is not a bad thing for the most part. If I had a dime for every post I have had withheld during a battle with Robert’s - I could retire. Does it piss me off? Your damn right it does. Was holding back those particular posts the right thing to do? In retrospect, yes.

13

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
orion wrote:
It is a privately owned website.

That means they could not censor you if they wanted to, and the Bill of Rights is a non issue.

Well, actually, I think you are incorrect here. Here is why. I know that if you have a privately owned piece of property – like Rockefeller Center here in New York City. Rock Center says that NOBODY can hand out flyers about anything – religious or otherwise on their property. Now, if they did allow, let’s say, people to hand out flyers advertising cell phones, but didn’t allow me to hand out my Gospel tracts, that would be illegal. It would fall under discrimination based on religion was is illegal.
[/quote]

I get your point, but technically only a government can censor you and even though it is called T-Nation it is not, actually, a nation.

I am not familiar with the finer points of American anti-discrimination laws, but your example is wrong insofar as you are not standing on Rockefeller plaza, you are using Rockefeller plazas resources to promote your agenda and that is not quite the same.

Be that as it may, you must be aware that they could pull your plug whenever they felt like it.

14

As censorship relates to this forum:

  1. Censorship = bad.

  2. Self-regulation is not censorship. It is not the moderators’ sole responsibility to make sure this forum is good. It is ours. When interesting and smart people leave because the forum has become a waste of their time, it is up to us to change it back.

  3. Most often, we aren’t arguing whether someone can post a thread, we are arguing whether they should post a thread. Used to, people would see threads and drop in. Bright commentary would often follow. Now, the average peruser will look in and see a collection of “Jesus Commands You Lest Ye Feel the Torment of 1000 Flames” or “Dick Cheney Elected to Top Post of Illuminati” - and those same people just sigh and click over to read something else. The quality of the Political forum has dropped, and this is at least part of it.

Censorship of ideas won’t fix this - people arguing like grownups will.

15

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think you missed the point of SteveO’s post in favor of getting a dig in.[/quote]

Are you against freedom too?

I think a government “of the people, for the people” should be pretty transparent in most matters.

A government “of the corporations, for the corporations” is another thing entirely. It fits the current situation a lot better, too.

[quote]This is an interesting discussion.

You have those on here who, for quite some time now, think they have a right to be heard. There is no such right guaranteed in the constitution.[/quote]

Exactly. Why should a government be held accountable for it’s decisions or actions?

Why even hold press conferences anyway; the press secretary is a master of saying nothing in the maximum amount of words.

Press conferences have become pretty useless, except as comedy fodder for the Daily Show.

Pack the room with “friendly” journalists; ignore inconvenient questions; talk in circles for 5 minutes when pressed for an answer. That guy must give lawyers hard-ons when he speaks.

16

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Well, actually, I think you are incorrect here. Here is why. I know that if you have a privately owned piece of property – like Rockefeller Center here in New York City. Rock Center says that NOBODY can hand out flyers about anything – religious or otherwise on their property. Now, if they did allow, let’s say, people to hand out flyers advertising cell phones, but didn’t allow me to hand out my Gospel tracts, that would be illegal. It would fall under discrimination based on religion was is illegal.[/quote]

You are already getting on shaky ground with your beliefs here.

Unfortunately, privately owned businesses do that all the time, however, they certainly never state that as the reason they do so. However, I am getting off topic.

As one of the people wishing you were censored, there is a point you miss, I don’t want you censored because of your religion or your beliefs. I’d want you censored for your trollish behavior and effect.

Consider Al Shades. He was eliminated by the board. It wasn’t because of his beliefs, it was because of his behavior and bad impact on the site. He pissed off too many people and brought down the intelligence level of the site. It was presumably “bad for business” and it was taken care of. People clamored for his removal…

In your case, this can also possibly be argued. T-Nation removed the politics threads from the top list on the front page about the same time that religious threads for prosyletizing became popular. These threads weren’t for discussion, they were for preaching a certain religion. Should we turn the site into threads competing for religious conversions? There are a lot of religions that aren’t being represented right now…

I know you will never admit that you are annoying people with something other than simply the fact you wish to discuss religion, but it is the simple truth. I, and most people here, are willing to DISCUSS nearly anything, but I don’t want to be preached to all the time. I, and presumably most people here do as well, have my own views and don’t want your views repeatedly shoved down my throat.

You know what, when you do that, repeatedly, it is offensive. Yes, offensive. Strangely, didn’t you suggest that certain types of offensive behavior should be censored in your original post?

I think such content is “bad for business” and I am amazed that you haven’t been removed as a troll a long time ago. However, I must say, this thread is simply a discussion, it is what the site and this forum is all about. Good job Steveo, glad to see you can do it.

Have DISCUSSIONS with people about political topics in this forum, and I certainly won’t have any issue with you, even if those DISCUSSIONS are religious in nature. There are other religious people on this site and you don’t see anyone wishing they were banned, do you?

Maybe it’s you… and not your religion which is the core issue here.

Again, this site does control the content of the forums already. Threats and arguments are controlled in order to maintain quality. Hell, Rainjack and I have gotten into it enough that we’ve crossed “the line” with our own posts often enough.

However, I have to agree that, in retrospect, the stuff that I said that didn’t make it to the board is probably not going to be missed. This site is not a government, we have no free speech rights here other than the fact that T-Nation does a great job of letting people talk about damned near everything using pretty much whatever language they want.

That’s pretty impressive really.

You are pretty “pushy” in your statements in general aren’t you? I want this! I want it that way! Answer exactly what I asked. Read this. Don’t read that. Don’t post here. Look, the type of control you want isn’t available to you.

Fortunately for you, the type of control I want isn’t available to me. I’d can your ass for being such a troll and disrupting the natural flow of DISCUSSION that can permeate this place when it isn’t being displaced by arrogance and prosyletizing.

17

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think you missed the point of SteveO’s post in favor of getting a dig in.

Are you against freedom too?

Your post should have been directed at ron33 - who evidently thinks we have a constitutional right to have our questions answered in a press conference.

I think a government “of the people, for the people” should be pretty transparent in most matters.

A government “of the corporations, for the corporations” is another thing entirely. It fits the current situation a lot better, too.

This is an interesting discussion.

You have those on here who, for quite some time now, think they have a right to be heard. There is no such right guaranteed in the constitution.

Ignoring or shouting someone down is not censorship. Ignoring a question in a press conference is not censorship.

Exactly. Why should a government be held accountable for it’s decisions or actions?

Why even hold press conferences anyway; the press secretary is a master of saying nothing in the maximum amount of words.

Press conferences have become pretty useless, except as comedy fodder for the Daily Show.

Pack the room with “friendly” journalists; ignore inconvenient questions; talk in circles for 5 minutes when pressed for an answer. That guy must give lawyers hard-ons when he speaks.

[/quote]

Did the doc just up your meds, or something?

Tell me exactly where censorship in the constitutional sense has been violated?

Your slipping, kiddo - and it’s not pretty.

18

I think everyone that has a hard-on for SteveO should just think twice about posting.

You have pookie who doesn’t even address the topic before diving into a personal attack on Stevie.

Then you have vroom - who is no better.

You guys were the head cheerleaders for getting SteveO to shut up with the religion talk - he does, but you keep on his ass about his religion.

Just makes you guys look like petty little bitches.

19

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think everyone that has a hard-on for SteveO should just think twice about posting.

You have pookie who doesn’t even address the topic before diving into a personal attack on Stevie.

Then you have vroom - who is no better.

You guys were the head cheerleaders for getting SteveO to shut up with the religion talk - he does, but you keep on his ass about his religion.

Just makes you guys look like petty little bitches.[/quote]

Ahahaha. Coming from you that doesn’t mean very much man. I mean really, all you like to do is argue and throw insults… that’s only one step above trolling.

Oh, now I get it!

20

Rainjack,

More seriously, have you ever felt that someone on the site was a troll and should be removed?