6 ms·

You and a large number of people feel those views repugnant. That said, there are likely certain views you have, that you feel you should have the right to expr

You and a large number of people feel those views repugnant. That said, there are likely certain views you have, that you feel you should have the right to express freely that a large group of people feel are equally repugnant and offensive. Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas, not a large un-elected ministry acceptability. History shows that wielding the weapon of censorship tends to have a boomerang effect long term and can have other consequence, such as radicalizing people. On a personal note, when I see groups banning ideas and views I automatically discredit the group and ideas behind the banning. The reason is that if a view truly has merit it should be able to stand up to healthy debate on it's own merits.

ModernMech 6y ago
> Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas, not a large un-elected ministry acceptability. I agree with what you wrote here, but if you believe this I'm confused why you would take issue with what happened here. This is exactly what has played out. These books were created and published in an open market. Remember, in free markets there is the possibility of failure. That's what you're seeing right here. The publisher of these ideas have determined that they have failed in the market. So what's the problem? No "large un-elected ministry acceptability" caused this to happen. It was the marketplace that rejected these ideas, and the publisher didn't want to bear the cost of continued publication, which they are free to do. Everyone involved exercised their individual freedoms in the marketplace. The system is working as intended. Where is the failure?
- lenkite 6y ago
  "These books were created and published in an open market." Sorry, but this is utterly false. The extraordinarily extended periods of copyright-terms enforced by the government make this the very opposite of the open market. The marketplace hasn't rejected these ideas. The holders of the copyright - a law enforced by the government - have rejected these ideas and no one can oppose them. Because of copyright, no other publisher can publish these books in the marketplace. Ergo - no free market and an effective ban on the books.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    You are confusing the particular expression of an idea with the idea itself. There are an infinite number of ways to express the ideas contained within the books that Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided not to publish. The expression of those ideas has not been banned at all, by anyone. Not eBay, not Amazon, not Dr. Seuss Enterprises, not even the government. Dr. Seuss Enterprises has decided to stop publication of their particular expression of these ideas because the ideas themselves are not popular enough to financially justify their continued publication. That's the method by which the whole system works. Ideas flourish in the marketplace when people support them. When people support an idea, it achieves financial success for those that express it. People who express unpopular ideas difficult to find financial success due to a lack of a support base. How else do you imagine the marketplace of ideas works, and what exactly do you think happens to ideas that are rejected by the marketplace?
    - lenkite 6y ago
      Please don't change the goalposts to "general ideas". The works of Dr Seuss can NO longer be published by other actors without violating the terms of copyright and inviting the full force of law and government and punishment on those who would attempt to do so. Besides, ideas can only be expressed through mediums and when those mediums are banned, so is the expression of ideas. There is no flourishing of the market place here - it has been implicitly denied. If there were no copyright - you can be bet your years salary that there would be folks willing to publish these books for the audience that wishes to read them. Remove the copyright - make it a true free market and THEN let's see if your argument that the ideas themselves are not popular enough holds true. Besides your statement of financial justification is utterly false. Dr Seuss tops the list of top 10 children's books. No, its fascist ultra-left ideology that is responsible for these implicit bans. Some folks want to dictate what other should read - capitalism doesn't even come into the picture. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2019/03/01/dr-seuss-tops-list-10-best-selling-childrens-books/3006775002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2019/03/01/dr-seus...
      - ModernMech 6y ago
nawgz 6y ago
> That said, there are likely certain views you have, that you feel you should have the right to express freely that a large group of people feel are equally repugnant and offensive I highly doubt this. I do not dehumanize others nor believe that likening enslaved races to monkeys is in any way appropriate. Besides, you are discussing free speech here - Dr Seuss in no way had his free speech curtailed. He is dead. > Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas This is a meaningless feel-goodism. Freedom of speech protects citizens against government retaliation or censorship for most categories of speech, notably carving out exceptions for calls to violence / treason etc.. Freedom of speech basically means you can say whatever the hell you want if it's not too overtly tearing at the fabric of society. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence; I can say 2+2 = 5 but that doesn't make it smart. People will call me an idiot, and they have that right. Freedom of speech doesn't protect authors from not "eternally having their works published by their copyright holders even after the author's lifetime has ended", and that is literally the only thing I can see you arguing for here. A publisher who owns the rights to these books has stopped generating more copies of them. What is wrong with that? > On a personal note, when I see groups banning ideas and views I automatically discredit the group and ideas behind the banning So, when you see Dr Seuss' publisher stop generating additional copies of books they believe further ideas and sentiments they wish to have no part of - surely, they are free to do this - you are automatically discrediting what group for this banning, exactly?
citrablue 6y ago
Just to be clear here, you have internally discredited the group that says "its racist to depict black people as animals in a zoo"?

ModernMech 6y ago

> Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas, not a large un-elected ministry acceptability. I agree with what you wrote here, but if you believe this I'm confused why you would take issue with what happened here. This is exactly what has played out. These books were created and published in an open market. Remember, in free markets there is the possibility of failure. That's what you're seeing right here. The publisher of these ideas have determined that they have failed in the market. So what's the problem? No "large un-elected ministry acceptability" caused this to happen. It was the marketplace that rejected these ideas, and the publisher didn't want to bear the cost of continued publication, which they are free to do. Everyone involved exercised their individual freedoms in the marketplace. The system is working as intended. Where is the failure?

lenkite 6y ago
"These books were created and published in an open market." Sorry, but this is utterly false. The extraordinarily extended periods of copyright-terms enforced by the government make this the very opposite of the open market. The marketplace hasn't rejected these ideas. The holders of the copyright - a law enforced by the government - have rejected these ideas and no one can oppose them. Because of copyright, no other publisher can publish these books in the marketplace. Ergo - no free market and an effective ban on the books.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  You are confusing the particular expression of an idea with the idea itself. There are an infinite number of ways to express the ideas contained within the books that Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided not to publish. The expression of those ideas has not been banned at all, by anyone. Not eBay, not Amazon, not Dr. Seuss Enterprises, not even the government. Dr. Seuss Enterprises has decided to stop publication of their particular expression of these ideas because the ideas themselves are not popular enough to financially justify their continued publication. That's the method by which the whole system works. Ideas flourish in the marketplace when people support them. When people support an idea, it achieves financial success for those that express it. People who express unpopular ideas difficult to find financial success due to a lack of a support base. How else do you imagine the marketplace of ideas works, and what exactly do you think happens to ideas that are rejected by the marketplace?
  - lenkite 6y ago
    Please don't change the goalposts to "general ideas". The works of Dr Seuss can NO longer be published by other actors without violating the terms of copyright and inviting the full force of law and government and punishment on those who would attempt to do so. Besides, ideas can only be expressed through mediums and when those mediums are banned, so is the expression of ideas. There is no flourishing of the market place here - it has been implicitly denied. If there were no copyright - you can be bet your years salary that there would be folks willing to publish these books for the audience that wishes to read them. Remove the copyright - make it a true free market and THEN let's see if your argument that the ideas themselves are not popular enough holds true. Besides your statement of financial justification is utterly false. Dr Seuss tops the list of top 10 children's books. No, its fascist ultra-left ideology that is responsible for these implicit bans. Some folks want to dictate what other should read - capitalism doesn't even come into the picture. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2019/03/01/dr-seuss-tops-list-10-best-selling-childrens-books/3006775002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2019/03/01/dr-seus...
    - ModernMech 6y ago

nawgz 6y ago

> That said, there are likely certain views you have, that you feel you should have the right to express freely that a large group of people feel are equally repugnant and offensive I highly doubt this. I do not dehumanize others nor believe that likening enslaved races to monkeys is in any way appropriate. Besides, you are discussing free speech here - Dr Seuss in no way had his free speech curtailed. He is dead. > Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas This is a meaningless feel-goodism. Freedom of speech protects citizens against government retaliation or censorship for most categories of speech, notably carving out exceptions for calls to violence / treason etc.. Freedom of speech basically means you can say whatever the hell you want if it's not too overtly tearing at the fabric of society. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence; I can say 2+2 = 5 but that doesn't make it smart. People will call me an idiot, and they have that right. Freedom of speech doesn't protect authors from not "eternally having their works published by their copyright holders even after the author's lifetime has ended", and that is literally the only thing I can see you arguing for here. A publisher who owns the rights to these books has stopped generating more copies of them. What is wrong with that? > On a personal note, when I see groups banning ideas and views I automatically discredit the group and ideas behind the banning So, when you see Dr Seuss' publisher stop generating additional copies of books they believe further ideas and sentiments they wish to have no part of - surely, they are free to do this - you are automatically discrediting what group for this banning, exactly?

citrablue 6y ago

Just to be clear here, you have internally discredited the group that says "its racist to depict black people as animals in a zoo"?