You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Censorship is fine when it suits me.
I wrote this in reply to this.
Nice provocative article, but in my opinion, a bit short-sighted.
I wrote this in reply to this.
Nice provocative article, but in my opinion, a bit short-sighted.
I may be short sighted, but you appear to be cross-eyed. I'm not entirely sure what your critique was, perhaps it went over my head.
Very amusingly written either way.
I suppose I'm not a free speech absolutist, but I think the laws as they stand in the USA seem to be functioning well.
Where I disagree however is the concept of a corporation being considered a person and money being considered speech. That seems like a recipe for corruption.
The political system as it stands seems to be the facilitation of arbitration of competing lobbyists, disguised poorly as a representative democracy.
That's neither here, nor there. I was mainly reacting to a well spoken man being assaulted for having an opinion, which in my opinion, is pretty fucked up.
I could also have an opinion, and if it's not favorable to a random person I tell it to, they might as well attack me. Even that very man might attack me, or otherwise tell me to silence myself, if I was to say the 'wrong' thing to him.
Maybe not at this point, seeing as he's learned his lesson, but I know the power of mere words.
As a philosophical poet, I know words are extremely powerful.
Preventing them from being spoken can be very useful.
As for me, I'm not an absolutist unless you are.
If you're not, then I say: Assault whoever says anything you disapprove of.
Why stand for bullshit? If you won't defend freedom of information transmission, even where you disagree, then why not at least beat down people who say things you don't like?
Why take the utterances of fools with anything other than a boot to their stupid face?
Better you watch your mouth for fear of repercussions from anyone, rather than a select few in whatever government/society/religion is popular. That is, censorship by all is favorable to censorship by a single government.
Or again, I don't mind playing the absolutist game if everyone else plays. I just don't want to be censored. I am one of those people who actually has things to say, and would like to think I can be completely and utterly free to speak my mind without any sort of fear whatsoever of being assaulted by humans, in uniform, or just street people.
But if not absolutist, then you'd better watch what you say. Ya never know who's listening, and who might disapprove.
Oh, for the record, my article became generic, and not targeted towards you, after submitting it as my own story, so a question like "Are you daft?" is not directed towards you.
You're cool, @business. =p
I just bought some new boots today...
I think we're both against censorship, but your critique is that I'm being unrealistic, because to a certain extent, might makes right?
I think that's what the second amendment is for ;)
Cheers @heretickitten :3
I'm not sure I'm giving a proper critique in the first place.
What I'd like is another article from you, about the absolutist perspective of free speech, and another separate article from the perspective of "if you insult me, or even a bear, you'll get hurt" type censorship.
Make it fair and objective, of course.
I don't like taking sides these days.
You know how it is. When the biggest, baddest government is totally corrupt, to the point that most of the world is either colonialized to have the same laws or religion, or too foreign for me to comprehend, I just assume that the two most popular sides are fabricated by the same source, and that even the third option is somehow tainted.
Freedom has problems, but I'd rather accept them, rather than try to cut off the parts of freedom that I disagree with.
I'd rather just make up my own opinion, and assume it's as contrived and opinionated as anything else. At least then I know it's mine.