4 ms·
No, making your game slightly less sexy is not censorship if it was your own choice. If you decide not to say something, this is not impinging on your freedom
by lmilcin 5y ago
No, making your game slightly less sexy is not censorship if it was your own choice.
If you decide not to say something, this is not impinging on your freedom of speech, it is you using your freedom to make that decision. Some people call this self-censorship which I do not count as censorship.
When I decide not to talk politics at the office or at home party that might be self-censorship but in reality is my own choice.
Yes, censoring trolls that say vaccines are harmful is still censorship, regardless of how sure you feel about being right.
Understand that any idea had to start at some point with a single person or small number of people. Women demanding their right to vote, it had to start somewhere. It also means everybody else was of another opinion.
Suppressing speech, beliefs, just because you don't agree with them risks to cut those movements before they have ability to gain traction and in effect slow human progress.
- vorpalhex 5y agoSelf-censorship is censorship. If you know stating some position (I support candidate X) is going to result in being harassed, death threats or other injury and you choose to not engage in speech, that is still being censored.
- lmilcin 5y agoYou made decision to not get involved in the conflict. That's not censorship. Have others been allowed to state that position? Has some body tried to suppress that speech? If yes, then they (but not you) have been subject to censorship.
- vorpalhex 5y agoI was trying to remember the name for this when I wrote the original comment, and now I recall it. A chilling effect. It started as a legal concept but it applies to censorship as well. It's sufficient to count as censorship if you simply punish legal speech sufficiently that the populace self-censors. [1]: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-effect https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-effect
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wrycoder 5y agoIntimidation is an effective form of censoring.
- wvenable 5y agoSpeech has consequences otherwise it wouldn't be worth speaking. Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is not censorship.
- lmilcin 5y agoYeah. People forget free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
- stale2002 5y ago> Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is not censorship So if whenever someone expresses a certain opinion, they received mass amounts of threats against their personal well being, by non-government actors, you would not say that this speech has been chilled/censored? Are you aware of the concept of how certain actions (such as mass threats) can have a chilling effect on speech?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wvenable 5y agoIf you don't want to speak because of the consequences, that is not censorship. And threats of violence are already against the law. Anything other than threats of violence is someone else's free speech.
- stale2002 5y ago> And threats of violence are already against the law But.... These types of things also cause a chilling effect on other people's speech right? Do you understand how it is possible to stop large amounts of people from engaging in speech, if non-government actors make threats against their well being? Do you understand this concept of how censorship can be done by chilling speech through the process of violent threats, even by non-government actors? > because of the consequences What if those consequences are violent threats (or even attacks!), by non-government actors, on you and your family? You really would not call that censorship, if no-one was willing to engage in certain speech, due to these violent threats by non-government actors?