3 ms·

Removing a book from a school library is not banning it. But even if it were, why does posting a bunch of examples of people banning things contradict someone

Removing a book from a school library is not banning it. But even if it were, why does posting a bunch of examples of people banning things contradict someone saying "I don’t think there can ever be a legitimate case for banning a piece of media". Are you trying to say that banning things is obviously done and therefore it is good, or...?

hulitu 3y ago
The OP said "I don’t think there can ever be a legitimate case for banning a piece of media". Turns out that "democratic" governments found different casses for "banning a piece of media". > Are you trying to say that banning things is obviously done and therefore it is good, or...? No. Banning things is very bad because it is mostly done to censor and to push alternative views.
- voakbasda 3y ago
  The fact that governments have banned media speaks more to their abject failure than of the actual need to ban it. Someone could make a case for killing all life by on the planet, but that doesn’t mean we should respect that opinion. It also doesn’t mean the underlying logic is sound or guarantees the desired outcome.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    You picked an egregious example to make it seem frivolous and impossible. But what about in the more mundane situation where someone is making a case that many people do agree with? A little genocide of an unpopular minority group maybe. Their desired outcome may not be guaranteed but it is certainly possible, and spread of propaganda media can be an important prerequisite for its success. We don't have to respect an opinion to oppose it.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      A government doing something doesn't imply that it is a legitimate thing to do. It's Hume's guillotine: you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". You can't derive "banning can be legitimate" (banning ought sometimes to occur) from "banning sometimes happens" (banning does sometimes occur). Taking your particular example, the mere fact that governments do ban "advocacy of genocide" doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. If you ban "advocating genocide" then you encourage people to label everything they don't like as "advocating genocide". And look what has happened: that's what people do. For example, TRAs now sometimes claim that anyone that disagrees with their worldview (ie. disagrees with their ontological claims about sex and gender) is an advocate of genocide against them. And certainly any criticism of them at all is "hate speech", also banned in many places. I'd rather not give bad-faith actors another weapon. Bad-faith actors already twist language to get what they want. If you give them the power to twist language so that people opposing them are at risk of going to prison then the situation is very dangerous indeed. That would be my argument against banning that kind of speech. But I also think that the argument for banning it is very weak too. People might agree with it? The idea that you need to suppress certain views because people would be swayed by them otherwise, what does that say that you think of the average person? Do you really think that the average person is going to be convinced by Nazis if only they had the chance to hear from them? When I put it like that, doesn't it seem absurd? "We need to stop the Nazis from speaking because they're so damn convincing"? I think people are more likely to latch onto something that is suppressed and forbidden anyway. "The government doesn't want you to know this" is more powerful than "everyone I try to talk to about this calls me a piece of shit and doesn't want to hear a word I've got to say". Social power is much more powerful than government edicts.

hulitu 3y ago

The OP said "I don’t think there can ever be a legitimate case for banning a piece of media". Turns out that "democratic" governments found different casses for "banning a piece of media". > Are you trying to say that banning things is obviously done and therefore it is good, or...? No. Banning things is very bad because it is mostly done to censor and to push alternative views.

voakbasda 3y ago
The fact that governments have banned media speaks more to their abject failure than of the actual need to ban it. Someone could make a case for killing all life by on the planet, but that doesn’t mean we should respect that opinion. It also doesn’t mean the underlying logic is sound or guarantees the desired outcome.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  You picked an egregious example to make it seem frivolous and impossible. But what about in the more mundane situation where someone is making a case that many people do agree with? A little genocide of an unpopular minority group maybe. Their desired outcome may not be guaranteed but it is certainly possible, and spread of propaganda media can be an important prerequisite for its success. We don't have to respect an opinion to oppose it.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    A government doing something doesn't imply that it is a legitimate thing to do. It's Hume's guillotine: you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". You can't derive "banning can be legitimate" (banning ought sometimes to occur) from "banning sometimes happens" (banning does sometimes occur). Taking your particular example, the mere fact that governments do ban "advocacy of genocide" doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. If you ban "advocating genocide" then you encourage people to label everything they don't like as "advocating genocide". And look what has happened: that's what people do. For example, TRAs now sometimes claim that anyone that disagrees with their worldview (ie. disagrees with their ontological claims about sex and gender) is an advocate of genocide against them. And certainly any criticism of them at all is "hate speech", also banned in many places. I'd rather not give bad-faith actors another weapon. Bad-faith actors already twist language to get what they want. If you give them the power to twist language so that people opposing them are at risk of going to prison then the situation is very dangerous indeed. That would be my argument against banning that kind of speech. But I also think that the argument for banning it is very weak too. People might agree with it? The idea that you need to suppress certain views because people would be swayed by them otherwise, what does that say that you think of the average person? Do you really think that the average person is going to be convinced by Nazis if only they had the chance to hear from them? When I put it like that, doesn't it seem absurd? "We need to stop the Nazis from speaking because they're so damn convincing"? I think people are more likely to latch onto something that is suppressed and forbidden anyway. "The government doesn't want you to know this" is more powerful than "everyone I try to talk to about this calls me a piece of shit and doesn't want to hear a word I've got to say". Social power is much more powerful than government edicts.