Society has always been able to censor its members through culture and pressure to conform, yet this allows one freedom to diverge on say political issues or art form, although this may not be entirely true.
My point is that in the case of Facebook it is the common decency of people which have decided to protest on some action by Facebook. Although these people may have influence and may pressure the Facebook to act as they want it to, the decision still lays with facebook.
Government however has a vast machine which ensures that its laws and policies are obeyed. For this fact alone nothing can be compared with the government and everything should be done to ensure that their hand remains at the absolute minimum because some old bureaucrats do not really know how a twenty year old teenager may achieve the "good life". To the old bureaucrat it may mean marrying a woman, perhaps a white woman, or a Chinese woman. To the old bureaucrat it may mean that prodigy is a bad influence on youngsters, etcetera. In short, it is none of his business and what is his business our society has been deciding since it became a collective and it could not be simpler, if it harms anyone, or anyone's property, then sure regulate their behaviour, otherwise leave society to deal with pressuring into confirmation when it comes to such issues as common human decency to have respect and empathy for the tragedy of an entire people.
"My point is that in the case of Facebook it is the common decency of people which have decided to protest on some action by Facebook. Although these people may have influence and may pressure the Facebook to act as they want it to, the decision still lays with facebook."
I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. It's like me holding a gun on you and telling you to do something or I'll shoot. If I then turned around and claim the choice was still yours I'd be lying. Same here. People are threatening Facebook with pain (albeit financial) if they don’t comply.
Also remember that, at its core, Government IS society. What if people voted in representatives that made a law forcing Facebook to squash these groups? That blows your argument completely out of the water because suddenly the government is acting at the people’s behest to censor
Again, this is how good people get on the wrong side of this issue. They think what they dislike is ok to censor while being against what people they disagree with want to censor. But once the policy is set that it’s ok to censor that which you don’t like everyone gets into the game and we have a society without free speech.
P.S. On the "society has always done this" argument you're right but that doesn't mean society was correct in doing it. I don't like communists but I also don't approve of Hollywood coming up with a black list and robbing people of their livelihood for their beliefs. That wasn’t government it was just people and it was wrong. To go back further Socrates was killed in a sham trial for questioning what he felt was the moral decline of his society.
The bottom line is there's no need for censorship. If a school of thought is reprehensible than you should teach your children that and have your friends teach their children that and if society is really against the reprehensible thought it will be discredited. Holocaust denial isn't almost universally discredited because people were censored it's universally discredited because we make a point of presenting the facts to our children in history classes around the country.
> Also remember that, at its core, Government IS society. What if people voted in representatives that made a law forcing Facebook to squash these groups?
Actually, govt is only the part of society that involves the "legitimate" use of force.
If I won't buy your potatoes, you're free to sell them to someone else. If govt says that you can't sell your potatoes, you're stuck.
> it's universally discredited because we make a point of presenting the facts to our children in history classes around the country.
Because we PAY people to present a certain set of facts. We can, and do, pay people to present non-facts or to ignore certain facts.
> The bottom line is there's no need for censorship.
You don't know much about people.
People need to have other people legitimize their beliefs and to strike down sinners.
"The bottom line is there's no need for censorship."
You may as well say we do not need laws by the exact same formula: "If a school of thought or action is reprehensible than you should teach your children that and have your friends teach their children that and if society is really against the reprehensible thought or action it will be discredited"
There are some things which are really, really bad, like conspiracy to overthrow the state. This is not an action, this is thoughts, plans, goals. It involves freedom of speech, one should be free to write a treaty on how to overthrow queen and parliament. Yet, in most peoples book, this is the highest crime on the land.
It is quite noble to suggest that we live in a perfect society where bad people do not exist. Speech is a powerful thing that is why it is protected by your constitution. Its power however is not necessarily always used for good.
The example of Socrates that you used is a good example to illustrate my point, it is the government using censorship to guard its own power, it is the old bureaucrats telling the teenagers what the good life is. As I said I am a libertarian, I do not believe the government should go an inch further than protect us and our property from other people.
I do not think that I could go so far and say that a group of people can not protest however - I do not quite know the facebook issue. If the media suggests that something should be banned, say the burka, because it is used to enslave women, because it keeps our society divided, etcetera, I think they have the right to so shape the opinion of the people so as to regard the burka as socially unacceptable.
I think I have entered a complex line of thought, mostly because I am speaking of generalities when such issues are particularities. I may conclude with saying that parliament has no business to censor due to its heavy hand and leaves no room for manoeuvre, but society does, because this is the best way to protect the rights of those in the minority of certain thinkings as they will be given the option to fight through their speech for whatever issue and if they manage to win society over fine.
I can use two examples to illustrate my point. In the 1960s it was society which began to see homosexuality as acceptable, this change of thinking on societies part was to some extent led by the media. Government soon followed with legalising homosexuality.
Smoking in public places is banned in the UK. The media played some good part in shaping the public's opinion. Now, although smoking is not fully banned, it is a very unsociable act. This is society in action, pressuring its members into conforming. In my opinion parliament can give it a last push and take the smokers out of misery by banning smoking completely. Yet this is protecting individuals from harming themselves and while it may benefit a great many, there will be a minority which such action would take away their liberty. Hence I think it is best to allow society to do what it does best, make it easier for those who smoke to stop doing so by making such behaviour socially unacceptable.
Does society have a right to pressure its members into accepting the holocaust? Of course. Does government have the right to ban the denial of holocaust. Absolutely not. Why? Because history tells us over and over again that some times we are told things which might actually not be true, such as the world is at the centre of the universe, that some god exists. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the holocaust did not happen and every right minded person, which includes most of our society accepts it. If therefore facebook is propagating some misinformation to suggest that holocoust did not happen, the members of society have every right to protest, influence, pressurise it, etcetera, to conform. But facebook has still the right to continue propagating such misinformation. You see, if a person had some row data to back up such claim, and if they believed enough in their cause, then they would be able to withstand such pressure and continue with propagating whatever they are and at the end of it the world may end up better off. If the government however had legislated that the denial of the holocaust is illegal, this person would be stopped in its tracks before he began. And I think that is the crux of why I believe that government has no business in censoring, but society does.
P.S. I have used the holocaust only as an example, all the above are fictional scenarios used only to illustrate a point and not to imply anything.
"Society has always been able to censor its members through culture and pressure to conform"
It's statements like this that I think show how grossly misunderstood this whole debate is. Society? how so? modern society? the global village? Always!? Impossible.
There is widespread belief that the human mind is pre-configured to attend to only a certain amount of individuals, and thus anthropologist believe that their was an upper limit on the size of human settlements for much of human evolution. There are still some tribes and groups that behave in such a way that I think shed's light on this issue. There are a group of Amish in USA that form communities no bigger than 124ish individuals (about the limit that psychologists believe we are capable of interacting with and knowing on the level we evolved to commune at). When the community exceeds this threshold, the population split and one group settle another village about a days travel away.
I'd be willing to speculate that this type of communal migration is what burst the human population from it's African homelands. Each time a community became to big to handle, whereby I think I mean the potential for dissent crosses a threshold, it was better for the community to split than for this dissent to fester. This type of behavior can also be seen in some of the great apes.
I would argue then, that Society has not ALWAYS had the ability to censor it's citizens, but that the myriad communities of humanity have aggregated into a whole much more massive than can be sustainable with the old paradigm of being able to leave and settle a new community. This is no longer possible, and only seems so through the creation of new mediums to populate with those few dissenting pioneers.
Comments
Society has always been able to censor its members through culture and pressure to conform, yet this allows one freedom to diverge on say political issues or art form, although this may not be entirely true.
My point is that in the case of Facebook it is the common decency of people which have decided to protest on some action by Facebook. Although these people may have influence and may pressure the Facebook to act as they want it to, the decision still lays with facebook.
Government however has a vast machine which ensures that its laws and policies are obeyed. For this fact alone nothing can be compared with the government and everything should be done to ensure that their hand remains at the absolute minimum because some old bureaucrats do not really know how a twenty year old teenager may achieve the "good life". To the old bureaucrat it may mean marrying a woman, perhaps a white woman, or a Chinese woman. To the old bureaucrat it may mean that prodigy is a bad influence on youngsters, etcetera. In short, it is none of his business and what is his business our society has been deciding since it became a collective and it could not be simpler, if it harms anyone, or anyone's property, then sure regulate their behaviour, otherwise leave society to deal with pressuring into confirmation when it comes to such issues as common human decency to have respect and empathy for the tragedy of an entire people.
"My point is that in the case of Facebook it is the common decency of people which have decided to protest on some action by Facebook. Although these people may have influence and may pressure the Facebook to act as they want it to, the decision still lays with facebook."
I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. It's like me holding a gun on you and telling you to do something or I'll shoot. If I then turned around and claim the choice was still yours I'd be lying. Same here. People are threatening Facebook with pain (albeit financial) if they don’t comply.
Also remember that, at its core, Government IS society. What if people voted in representatives that made a law forcing Facebook to squash these groups? That blows your argument completely out of the water because suddenly the government is acting at the people’s behest to censor
Again, this is how good people get on the wrong side of this issue. They think what they dislike is ok to censor while being against what people they disagree with want to censor. But once the policy is set that it’s ok to censor that which you don’t like everyone gets into the game and we have a society without free speech.
P.S. On the "society has always done this" argument you're right but that doesn't mean society was correct in doing it. I don't like communists but I also don't approve of Hollywood coming up with a black list and robbing people of their livelihood for their beliefs. That wasn’t government it was just people and it was wrong. To go back further Socrates was killed in a sham trial for questioning what he felt was the moral decline of his society.
The bottom line is there's no need for censorship. If a school of thought is reprehensible than you should teach your children that and have your friends teach their children that and if society is really against the reprehensible thought it will be discredited. Holocaust denial isn't almost universally discredited because people were censored it's universally discredited because we make a point of presenting the facts to our children in history classes around the country.
> Also remember that, at its core, Government IS society. What if people voted in representatives that made a law forcing Facebook to squash these groups?
Actually, govt is only the part of society that involves the "legitimate" use of force.
If I won't buy your potatoes, you're free to sell them to someone else. If govt says that you can't sell your potatoes, you're stuck.
> it's universally discredited because we make a point of presenting the facts to our children in history classes around the country.
Because we PAY people to present a certain set of facts. We can, and do, pay people to present non-facts or to ignore certain facts.
> The bottom line is there's no need for censorship.
You don't know much about people.
People need to have other people legitimize their beliefs and to strike down sinners.
That may be wrong, but that's how monkeys roll.
"The bottom line is there's no need for censorship."
You may as well say we do not need laws by the exact same formula: "If a school of thought or action is reprehensible than you should teach your children that and have your friends teach their children that and if society is really against the reprehensible thought or action it will be discredited"
There are some things which are really, really bad, like conspiracy to overthrow the state. This is not an action, this is thoughts, plans, goals. It involves freedom of speech, one should be free to write a treaty on how to overthrow queen and parliament. Yet, in most peoples book, this is the highest crime on the land.
It is quite noble to suggest that we live in a perfect society where bad people do not exist. Speech is a powerful thing that is why it is protected by your constitution. Its power however is not necessarily always used for good.
The example of Socrates that you used is a good example to illustrate my point, it is the government using censorship to guard its own power, it is the old bureaucrats telling the teenagers what the good life is. As I said I am a libertarian, I do not believe the government should go an inch further than protect us and our property from other people.
I do not think that I could go so far and say that a group of people can not protest however - I do not quite know the facebook issue. If the media suggests that something should be banned, say the burka, because it is used to enslave women, because it keeps our society divided, etcetera, I think they have the right to so shape the opinion of the people so as to regard the burka as socially unacceptable.
I think I have entered a complex line of thought, mostly because I am speaking of generalities when such issues are particularities. I may conclude with saying that parliament has no business to censor due to its heavy hand and leaves no room for manoeuvre, but society does, because this is the best way to protect the rights of those in the minority of certain thinkings as they will be given the option to fight through their speech for whatever issue and if they manage to win society over fine.
I can use two examples to illustrate my point. In the 1960s it was society which began to see homosexuality as acceptable, this change of thinking on societies part was to some extent led by the media. Government soon followed with legalising homosexuality.
Smoking in public places is banned in the UK. The media played some good part in shaping the public's opinion. Now, although smoking is not fully banned, it is a very unsociable act. This is society in action, pressuring its members into conforming. In my opinion parliament can give it a last push and take the smokers out of misery by banning smoking completely. Yet this is protecting individuals from harming themselves and while it may benefit a great many, there will be a minority which such action would take away their liberty. Hence I think it is best to allow society to do what it does best, make it easier for those who smoke to stop doing so by making such behaviour socially unacceptable.
Does society have a right to pressure its members into accepting the holocaust? Of course. Does government have the right to ban the denial of holocaust. Absolutely not. Why? Because history tells us over and over again that some times we are told things which might actually not be true, such as the world is at the centre of the universe, that some god exists. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the holocaust did not happen and every right minded person, which includes most of our society accepts it. If therefore facebook is propagating some misinformation to suggest that holocoust did not happen, the members of society have every right to protest, influence, pressurise it, etcetera, to conform. But facebook has still the right to continue propagating such misinformation. You see, if a person had some row data to back up such claim, and if they believed enough in their cause, then they would be able to withstand such pressure and continue with propagating whatever they are and at the end of it the world may end up better off. If the government however had legislated that the denial of the holocaust is illegal, this person would be stopped in its tracks before he began. And I think that is the crux of why I believe that government has no business in censoring, but society does.
P.S. I have used the holocaust only as an example, all the above are fictional scenarios used only to illustrate a point and not to imply anything.
"Society has always been able to censor its members through culture and pressure to conform"
It's statements like this that I think show how grossly misunderstood this whole debate is. Society? how so? modern society? the global village? Always!? Impossible. There is widespread belief that the human mind is pre-configured to attend to only a certain amount of individuals, and thus anthropologist believe that their was an upper limit on the size of human settlements for much of human evolution. There are still some tribes and groups that behave in such a way that I think shed's light on this issue. There are a group of Amish in USA that form communities no bigger than 124ish individuals (about the limit that psychologists believe we are capable of interacting with and knowing on the level we evolved to commune at). When the community exceeds this threshold, the population split and one group settle another village about a days travel away. I'd be willing to speculate that this type of communal migration is what burst the human population from it's African homelands. Each time a community became to big to handle, whereby I think I mean the potential for dissent crosses a threshold, it was better for the community to split than for this dissent to fester. This type of behavior can also be seen in some of the great apes.
I would argue then, that Society has not ALWAYS had the ability to censor it's citizens, but that the myriad communities of humanity have aggregated into a whole much more massive than can be sustainable with the old paradigm of being able to leave and settle a new community. This is no longer possible, and only seems so through the creation of new mediums to populate with those few dissenting pioneers.