Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 104 KB, 640x480, censorship.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16679297 No.16679297 [Reply] [Original]

Is censorship and infringement on freedom of speech ever justified? What are the philosophical arguments for and against censorship?

>> No.16679315

>>16679297
Karl Popper talks about the tolerance paradox.

>> No.16679322

As an actual communist (not a "libertarian socialist") I don't believe in freedom of speech. The notion that everyone has something worth saying is laughable, silly, and also dangerous. It breeds narcissism, stupidity, and disharmony. Fascists, reactionaries, imperialists, racists, and so on are rats and should not be allowed to have platforms and need to be immediately stomped. Today, I see China as the most ideal they are very admirable.
What libertarian socialists and anarchists don't understand is that they are playing by the rightists' rules and the right/reactionaries are the ones in power. They are no harm to them and the moment they are seen "breaking the rules" or doing something "subversive" they will be immediately stomped. That is why a strong central power is required to squash them and there is no revolution without it.

>> No.16679322,1 [INTERNAL] 

Imagine a regime so pathetic it can and will be destroyed by words alone

>> No.16679582

>>16679322
>"my worldview does not stand up to scurtiny"

Seethe more pink cheeks

>> No.16679594

Everything should be censored

>> No.16679609

It's funny when powerless losers who dream about being despots boast about their opposition to free speech. Anyone with any sense pays it lip service until they've actually gained the power to censor.

>> No.16679628

>>16679315
>"Tolerance paradox"
Double edged sword, concerning the current political situation (especiallybin Europe)

>>16679322
Of course you have to censor, communism dies when faced with logic and reason

>> No.16679635

>>16679297
Censors remove the spark of humanity from all that they alter. Nobody should feel afraid to speak their minds. Creators of taboo are subhuman beasts

>> No.16679643

>>16679628
>>16679582
>the ideas that circulate the most are logical and reasonable and stand up under scrutiny
are you really this naive?

>> No.16679662

>>16679297
You've just been CANCELED

>> No.16679821

>>16679643
You are divorced from reality if you think that the ideas that circulate the most today aren't propped up by censorship because they do not stand up to scrutiny. Racial equality, feminism, communism, critical theory, intersectionality, lgbtq+ advocacy. They're all propped up by gag orders against dissenters. It's logical and reasonable to be against such concepts, and in countries were speech isn't policed they do not gain any significant ground.

>> No.16679843

>>16679322
>The notion that everyone has something worth saying is laughable
Nice bait my dude

>> No.16679970

>>16679297
I see freedom of speech as a pipe dream. Even if there were no institutional measures against dissenting opinions (this doesn't exist even in France or the USA), you'd have the overton window of society to deal with, something that is self-correcting so long as its not forcefully pulled towards a different direction, and even then, the only change would be that other opinions become verboten in the place of the old taboos.

>> No.16680021

>>16679297
>Is censorship and infringement on freedom of speech ever justified?
When it involves a secret the military needs to keep in order to protect the population. Also some of the race related science is kept suppressed for a reason. Society would have a much harder time functioning if it was an open fact.

>> No.16680027

>>16679315
I don't mind Popper, but that "paradox of tolerance" doesn't really say much and is kinda politically naive.
Political power isn't distributed with rational debates. Ben Shapiro can DESTROY a tranny in a debate, but as long as trannies have more institutional power they're going to win.

>> No.16680124

>>16679821
so your theory is that the bolshevik revolution could have only happened thanks to... the tsar censoring all opposition to communism? is that what having a solid grasp on reality looks like?

>> No.16680142

Keep in mind that child pornography laws prohibitions are a form of censorship.

>> No.16680156

>>16679297
Have you read a book about that subject?

>> No.16680259

>>16679297
Every regime censors, every culture has its taboos. "Freedom of speech" in the anglosphere originally meant "freedom from censure by the monarchy and priesthood"; now this dispensation censures against any threats to its own hegemony. Any notion of a platonic ideal of "freedom of speech" was always bullshit doubletalk.

>> No.16680267

>>16680021
Its suppressed to keep society fucked up not to prevent it, fag

>> No.16680310
File: 73 KB, 640x820, Malleus Monstrorum Illustration by Loïc Muzy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16680310

>>16679297
No reason. Not unless we are faced with Lovecraftian entities that would not only threaten the eastern spiritualities and the western Abrahamic religions' sense of order and sensibilities and also threaten our existence which would demand government keep such shit under wraps. Not to create bliss but to avoid a literal societal meltdown. And this hurts to say coming from someone that is usually politically incorrect and believes in truth.
No. Anything should be talked about. But only the coolest minds with the best ideas will prevail.

>> No.16680320

>>16679297
>Is censorship and infringement on freedom of speech ever justified?
No

>>16679315
He was an idiot, statism of any kind should be illegal, not ideas

>> No.16680334

>>16679322
>The notion that everyone has something worth saying is laughable, silly, and also dangerous
thats nit the point you mouthbreather, the point is not censoring people so you dont end up censored

>> No.16680340

>>16680259
we have pretty much freedom of speech here apart from threats

>> No.16680341

>>16679322
>Fascists, reactionaries, imperialists, racists, and so on are rats and should not be allowed to have platforms and need to be immediately stomped
Fascism is just a variation of socialism, it came from a socialist party, the only reason communists hate fascists is because they know they created it
The original marxists like marx were also racists

>> No.16680363

>>16680142
child pornography isn't prohibited purely in order to censor, they are prohibited because prohibiting them reduces their spread, and therefore the incentive to produce more (hurt more children)

>> No.16680374

>>16680341
In the final analysis, fascism is the wrangling of the state from the bourgeoisie by the petite-bourgeois. Fascists don't get rid of the bourgeoisie, but merely subsume them into the state, along with the male working class. The ultimate aim of fascism is to flatten the contradictions between the male proletariat and the bourgeoisie by dissolving the male proletariat into the state, and make them into a parasitic military-bureaucratic entity rather than the actual workers. Of course, this can only be achieved by subjugating and enslaving another population, that the bureaucratic and military can rest upon.

>> No.16680378

>>16679322
Same, except I am a Fascist and hate communists.

>> No.16680386

>>16680340
As long as you don't mind losing your job, that is.

>> No.16680396

>>16680340
>>16680386
If those threats are sufficiently credible, then you don't have freedom of speech.

>> No.16680402

>>16680267
Do you really think society would be better off if humans races were seperated into different species? Genuinely curious as I haven't heard a good argument on it.

>> No.16680535

>>16680363
>materials promoting [concept, philosophy, data or facts which contradict the official moral, political or philosophical doctrine] isn't prohibited purely in order to censor, they are prohibited because prohibiting them reduces the spread of [insert delinquent idea or data], and therefore the incentive to enact [philosophy, political framework or moral standpoint].

>> No.16680552

>>16680402
I mean at the very least we could stop dumping billions of tax dollars into trying educate the uneducatable and policing the unpolicable.

>> No.16680552,1 [INTERNAL] 

>>16679297
It's always justified to stop Zionism. All Zionists should be muzzled since they are part of or work on behalf of a deceptive militarized entity that suppresses human rights. A violent, aggressive, war-initiating state has no right to engage in propaganda operations about its actions on American (really any) social media platform. There is no right of a foreign government to air deceptive information on the American populace. Since the ultimate source of Zionist propaganda is the state of Israel, anyone who posts it can be reasonably believed to be complicit in spreading the official propaganda of an apartheid, genocidal state.

It's even worse, since Israel uses its own propagandists and its influence with the diaspora to control the speech of citizens of other countries. For example, yesterday Keith Woods tweeted solidarity and approval of Khameini's denial of the Holocaust. Today, that tweet was deleted and replaced only with a boilerplate podcast about how "liberalism" enables terrorism. This hurts two of Israel's enemies at the same time. Obviously threats were made, or at the very least, extreme pressure applied. People can't have freedom of speech when a more powerful entity is essentially above the law in suppressing others' speech.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action