5 ms·

>Name one time in history the people on the side of censorship been in the right. Germany's current censorship of Nazi imagery and holocaust denial. https://e

by cmh89 5y ago

>Name one time in history the people on the side of censorship been in the right. Germany's current censorship of Nazi imagery and holocaust denial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a#:~:text=The%20German%20Strafgesetzbuch%20(StGB;%20English,is%20no%20official%20exhaustive%20list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a#:~.... The US (and most countries) ban on child pornography's is also an extremely valuable and effective form of censorship.

daenz 5y ago
Both of those things are illegal and therefore fall under the exemption that the parent post explained.
- warning26 5y ago
  > The only censorship that should happen is when something illegal is said I enjoy this tautological directive. By OP's logic, China's censorship is totally fine because it's illegal to criticize the government there.
  - daenz 5y ago
    I agree, but I also I don't think that's the point OP was trying to make. My reading was that the censorship that they are taking immediate issue with is the censorship that isn't a direct result of a law. Whether a certain thing should be legally censored or not is a separate (but related) issue.
    - cmh89 5y ago
      But its not like CP wasn't censored before it was illegal. The reason CP was sold through the mail in the first place is that reputable and moral private businesses wouldn't sell it in brick and mortar shops, even after porn as a whole became mainstream enough to sell in a storefront.
worried4future 5y ago
Child pornography isn't censored inherently. Child pornography isn't allowed because we believe that pornography requires consent of the involved parties and children are inherently incapable of consenting.
- slillibri 5y ago
  You could argue that it is explicitly censored as even illustrated/animated CSAM is illegal under the PROTECT act.
- verall 5y ago
  WTF? It is censored inherently with laws directed at it specifically, with crimes against production, distribution, and possesion. It is censored culturally as nearly any tech goon or housekeeper that finds it will report you (contrast with fraud or drugs). In plenty of U.S. states the age of consent is below the age at which pornographic images are legal. I really have no idea what point you're making.
- taque 5y ago
- cmh89 5y ago
  I'm sure what 'censored inherently' means. It sounds like word salad to me. What does that mean? You're understanding of the legal framework under which CP is censored and banned is incorrect, which might be indicative of a larger lack of understanding of what censorship means and how its used on a daily basis.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
syshum 5y ago
using prohibition of CP as an example is a very weak argument, generally speaking nude photos are said to be the speech of the person in the photo's they give the permission for them to be distributed (or not), children are incapable to give this consent thus the prohibition of CP is not censorship in the way you are attempting to conflate it here. this si also why "revenge porn" is illegal, the person distributing the porn is NOT the speaker, the person in the photo;s is, and it is for them to control how that is distributed. As to Germany's censorship of Nazi imagery, and holocaust denial, I believe the better path is the path the OP outlines where debate and open dialog is a better path and government laws. so I disagree that is an example of "good censorship"
- worried4future 5y ago
  I 100% agree w/r/t the CP argument (I basically posted the same thing at the same time, lol) but the Nazi/Holocaust one I'm not as sure about honestly. I think, in post-war Germany, that type of censorship had a role and was necessary. It probably does do more harm than good today.
- taque 5y ago
- cmh89 5y ago
  Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that photos generally belong to the person who took them. >As to Germany's censorship of Nazi imagery, and holocaust denial, I believe the better path is the path the OP outlines where debate and open dialog is a better path and government laws. so I disagree that is an example of "good censorship" you can't "debate" people who are firmly detached from reality. We can see that with COVID-19 misinformation. Allowing them to parade around in Nazi costumes only helps them, it does nothing for society to let them dress like that and goodstep around. Another example of positive censorship is when Reddit banned /r/jailbait. Do you agree with that? The pictures weren't illegal.
shockeychap 5y ago
Are you seriously making an equivalency between child pornography and raising objections to masks? Given the rapid and profound spread of Omicron against all efforts, I also question the effectiveness of masks and other containment measures being used. Should I be blocked for typing these words on HN? How long ago was it prohibited to talk about the lab leak origin theory? Kyle Rittenhouse, who was ultimately acquitted by a jury, was blocked from discussion on Facebook and couldn't raise money for his defense on GoFundMe. Numerous news outlets wrongly asserted over and over that he chased his assailant, when the video plainly showed otherwise. Is this really the world we want, in which everything held up by one side is sacred and anything said by the other is heresy?
- cmh89 5y ago
  >Given the rapid and profound spread of Omicron against all efforts, I also question the effectiveness of masks and other containment measures being used. Should I be blocked for typing these words on HN? Which words? Just what you posted? No. Now, if you want to make up lies and misinformation, sure. Masks are effective. Youtube has a policy on lying on that subject. If you don't like that, don't use Youtube. >Is this really the world we want, in which everything held up by one side is sacred and anything said by the other is heresy? You can still find plenty of whatever right wing misinformation you want on Facebook/Instagram/Nextdoor/Youtube. Do you really think your statement is the realm of reality at all?
  - shockeychap 5y ago
    You do know that left wing misinformation is a thing too, right? You understand that both ideologies can be taken too far and that they both have elements engaging in misinformation. You understand that, right?
    - cmh89 5y ago
      >You do know that left wing misinformation is a thing too, right? You understand that both ideologies can be taken too far and that they both have elements engaging in misinformation. You understand that, right I guess it depends on what you are talking about. The US left has no equivalent to Fox News, OAN, Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, QAnon, etc.. The right-wing misinformation machine is massive. Millions of people think the election was stolen because of how effective the right-wing misinformation machine is. Part of the right-wing misinformation machine is indoctrinating viewers into believe that there is a left-wing indoctrination machine, which is probably why you are 'both-sides'ing something that is clearly a much bigger problem for the right-wing of America.

by cmh89 5y ago

daenz 5y ago

Both of those things are illegal and therefore fall under the exemption that the parent post explained.

warning26 5y ago
> The only censorship that should happen is when something illegal is said I enjoy this tautological directive. By OP's logic, China's censorship is totally fine because it's illegal to criticize the government there.
- daenz 5y ago
  I agree, but I also I don't think that's the point OP was trying to make. My reading was that the censorship that they are taking immediate issue with is the censorship that isn't a direct result of a law. Whether a certain thing should be legally censored or not is a separate (but related) issue.
  - cmh89 5y ago
    But its not like CP wasn't censored before it was illegal. The reason CP was sold through the mail in the first place is that reputable and moral private businesses wouldn't sell it in brick and mortar shops, even after porn as a whole became mainstream enough to sell in a storefront.

worried4future 5y ago

Child pornography isn't censored inherently. Child pornography isn't allowed because we believe that pornography requires consent of the involved parties and children are inherently incapable of consenting.

slillibri 5y ago
You could argue that it is explicitly censored as even illustrated/animated CSAM is illegal under the PROTECT act.
verall 5y ago
WTF? It is censored inherently with laws directed at it specifically, with crimes against production, distribution, and possesion. It is censored culturally as nearly any tech goon or housekeeper that finds it will report you (contrast with fraud or drugs). In plenty of U.S. states the age of consent is below the age at which pornographic images are legal. I really have no idea what point you're making.
taque 5y ago
cmh89 5y ago
I'm sure what 'censored inherently' means. It sounds like word salad to me. What does that mean? You're understanding of the legal framework under which CP is censored and banned is incorrect, which might be indicative of a larger lack of understanding of what censorship means and how its used on a daily basis.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

syshum 5y ago

using prohibition of CP as an example is a very weak argument, generally speaking nude photos are said to be the speech of the person in the photo's they give the permission for them to be distributed (or not), children are incapable to give this consent thus the prohibition of CP is not censorship in the way you are attempting to conflate it here. this si also why "revenge porn" is illegal, the person distributing the porn is NOT the speaker, the person in the photo;s is, and it is for them to control how that is distributed. As to Germany's censorship of Nazi imagery, and holocaust denial, I believe the better path is the path the OP outlines where debate and open dialog is a better path and government laws. so I disagree that is an example of "good censorship"

worried4future 5y ago
I 100% agree w/r/t the CP argument (I basically posted the same thing at the same time, lol) but the Nazi/Holocaust one I'm not as sure about honestly. I think, in post-war Germany, that type of censorship had a role and was necessary. It probably does do more harm than good today.
taque 5y ago
cmh89 5y ago
Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that photos generally belong to the person who took them. >As to Germany's censorship of Nazi imagery, and holocaust denial, I believe the better path is the path the OP outlines where debate and open dialog is a better path and government laws. so I disagree that is an example of "good censorship" you can't "debate" people who are firmly detached from reality. We can see that with COVID-19 misinformation. Allowing them to parade around in Nazi costumes only helps them, it does nothing for society to let them dress like that and goodstep around. Another example of positive censorship is when Reddit banned /r/jailbait. Do you agree with that? The pictures weren't illegal.

shockeychap 5y ago

Are you seriously making an equivalency between child pornography and raising objections to masks? Given the rapid and profound spread of Omicron against all efforts, I also question the effectiveness of masks and other containment measures being used. Should I be blocked for typing these words on HN? How long ago was it prohibited to talk about the lab leak origin theory? Kyle Rittenhouse, who was ultimately acquitted by a jury, was blocked from discussion on Facebook and couldn't raise money for his defense on GoFundMe. Numerous news outlets wrongly asserted over and over that he chased his assailant, when the video plainly showed otherwise. Is this really the world we want, in which everything held up by one side is sacred and anything said by the other is heresy?

cmh89 5y ago
>Given the rapid and profound spread of Omicron against all efforts, I also question the effectiveness of masks and other containment measures being used. Should I be blocked for typing these words on HN? Which words? Just what you posted? No. Now, if you want to make up lies and misinformation, sure. Masks are effective. Youtube has a policy on lying on that subject. If you don't like that, don't use Youtube. >Is this really the world we want, in which everything held up by one side is sacred and anything said by the other is heresy? You can still find plenty of whatever right wing misinformation you want on Facebook/Instagram/Nextdoor/Youtube. Do you really think your statement is the realm of reality at all?
- shockeychap 5y ago
  You do know that left wing misinformation is a thing too, right? You understand that both ideologies can be taken too far and that they both have elements engaging in misinformation. You understand that, right?
  - cmh89 5y ago
    >You do know that left wing misinformation is a thing too, right? You understand that both ideologies can be taken too far and that they both have elements engaging in misinformation. You understand that, right I guess it depends on what you are talking about. The US left has no equivalent to Fox News, OAN, Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, QAnon, etc.. The right-wing misinformation machine is massive. Millions of people think the election was stolen because of how effective the right-wing misinformation machine is. Part of the right-wing misinformation machine is indoctrinating viewers into believe that there is a left-wing indoctrination machine, which is probably why you are 'both-sides'ing something that is clearly a much bigger problem for the right-wing of America.