5 ms·

Self-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

Self-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 ago
You 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Intimidation is an effective form of censoring.
wvenable 5y ago
Speech has consequences otherwise it wouldn't be worth speaking. Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is not censorship.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Yeah. 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 ago
    If 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?
      - wvenable 5y ago
        It's chilling but it's not censorship. You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too. Extremely famous people have changed the world through their speech and died for it. They should not have died but they were also explicitly not censored. You're just arguing over the meaning of words. I agree with you that threats of violence over speech is awful. And thankfully it is against the law, as it should be. But that's also the most extreme -- we're mostly arguing about people who don't feel like they should have to answer for their speech rather than being violently threatened.

lmilcin 5y ago

You 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 ago
I 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 ago
Intimidation is an effective form of censoring.

wvenable 5y ago

Speech has consequences otherwise it wouldn't be worth speaking. Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is not censorship.

lmilcin 5y ago
Yeah. 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 ago
  If 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?
    - wvenable 5y ago
      It's chilling but it's not censorship. You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too. Extremely famous people have changed the world through their speech and died for it. They should not have died but they were also explicitly not censored. You're just arguing over the meaning of words. I agree with you that threats of violence over speech is awful. And thankfully it is against the law, as it should be. But that's also the most extreme -- we're mostly arguing about people who don't feel like they should have to answer for their speech rather than being violently threatened.