8 ms·

This disturbs me on the grounds of "bad habit" precedent alone. Getting accustomed to self-censorship is almost as bad as having it mandated.

by doktrin 14y ago

DanBC 14y ago
Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building? Why is that form of self-censorship acceptable to you?
- pstuart 14y ago
  That's different and you (should) know it.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    How?
    - astine 14y ago
      Meta Comment: pstuart is technically correct, but I think it's much more useful to explain why something is the case than to simply accuse someone of willful ignorance. There's always the possibility that they, or someone else, genuinely does not know.
    - pstuart 14y ago
      Because your example doesn't give the members of the crowd a choice if they want to hear it. Nobody was forced to watch the movie.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        I was expecting something a little more convincing. That's a complete red herring; you never have the choice not to hear something once you've heard it. Does it help if I don't insult you unless you make eye contact with me? After all, if you didn't want to hear what I think about you, you didn't have to catch my eye.
        pstuart 14y ago
        You might be trolling but I'll play along. The choice occurs when one goes to youtube, searches for the video and clicks play. You should research the "goatse" case right now for more information about this.
- jakeonthemove 14y ago
  You'd shout that if you hated the persons in that building, and you'd be the one affected in the end. Youtube self-censoring "for the right reasons" now can easily lead to them censoring things in the future not only on the basis that it's "for the right reasons", but also because "we did it before, why not now?", which is among the worst excuses/reasons to do anything... And Google will not not affected - it will be the thousands/millions of people who will not be able to watch the video (which will most likely be somewhat important - they wouldn't censor a cat playing with a tennis ball).
- andreasvc 14y ago
  That's a straw man, because the grandparent probably does not feel inclined to shout that regardless, so no censorship is necessary. What's more, the troubling aspect here is that a third party is doing the censorship. IMHO they shouldn't legitimize the outrage over this video which is nothing more than amateurish satire.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    The gp probably does not feel inclined to shout that, but why? Is it because they've lived a life where they condition themselves to self-censor to some degree? Do we just blurt out everything we think when we meet people? "Hello Bob. My word you're fat! And really rather ugly!" No. We live our lives self censoring to some extent. We don't want to go out of our way to insult someone. There are some exception. We don't mind insulting people for humour. We really don't care about insulting people when politics is involved. There are real reasons why religions need to be challenged. Some bits of religion do very great harm to many people. Doesn't that mean we need to be careful with the offence we cause? Not to avoid any offence, but to make sure it serves some purpose? Causing offence to achieve a goal is probably acceptable. Otherwise you're just yelling "HELLO CUNTS!!!". And to suggest that Youtube is censoring something is -in my opinion- vaguely ridiculous. They're choosing not to distribute a video. They're an international business and they suppress many videos every day. There are very many other online video services which could carry this film. I can't display nipples on Youtube. I can't display HoboFights on Youtube. Why should this video be any different?
    - andreasvc 14y ago
      I think self-censorship is somewhat of a misleading term. Self-control is central to human psychology, but it is different from the idea of censorship where one party prevents the voice of another to be heard because it is against the interests of the former. I certainly agree that this video is not prudent, and hence will not achieve anything. It is quite another question whether this means a company like Google should judge this and take action on it without a court order. The reason to call this censorship is because the decision not to distribute is probably politically motivated. Compared to the examples you cite, this video is very much relevant to public interests, i.e., people will want to know what all the fuss is about. This does not hold for your examples of 'hobo fights' and nipples.
- brianchu 14y ago
  That analogy is false because what YouTube is doing is blocking video clips that were posted by other people. In your analogy, only you are censoring yourself. Nobody else is censoring you from shouting whatever you want to shout. It would be perfectly fine if individual users voluntarily chose not to upload certain clips. An accurate rhetorical question would be: Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building and before a single sound has emerged from your mouth someone gags you?
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Or you know, locked you out before you came into the building.
  - edoloughlin 14y ago
    > An accurate rhetorical question would be: Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building and before a single sound has emerged from your mouth someone gags you? Don't property rights trump free speech rights? (IANAL) I.e., it's ok for you to shout whatever you want in public, but I get to throw you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying? Aren't Google just exercising their property rights in this case, common carrier considerations aside?
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Don't property rights trump free speech rights? (IANAL) Legally? Free speech has a right is mostly about freedom from governmental interference. Private companies usually can censor whatever they want. But I'm pretty sure people are discussing the moral aspect of this, not the legal. And one can consider that Google shouldn't do this, even if they have the legal right to do so.
- anamax 14y ago
  When I don't yell "HELLO CUNTS", it's not because someone 1000 miles away might be offended. As far as this particular offense goes, "piss Christ" and so on.... Some animals are more equal than others.
nateberkopec 14y ago
Hm, I don't know. This video is clearly hate speech, and I'm not sure Google should be required to keep content online that has literally caused the deaths of several people. A 'slippery slope' argument doesn't hold up for me in this particular case. EDIT: alright, maybe not literally. But I maintain that the video is hate speech, and that a different standard on "censorship" should apply here.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  That 'literally' is much too strong. The video was used as a convenient excuse for an attack which was probably already being prepared. Cf. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-was-really-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-w...
- Dirlewanger 14y ago
  I think this is indeed a slippery slope. This is a VERY slippery slope because of the aftermath. A normal situation of censorship would have a platform (in this case, Google) censoring some sort of content released through them that was critical of the platform. This is almost the opposite; Google clearly is trying to assuage the seething anger for greater good. How far does one go though? What if you have someone release a highly critical video of a massively corrupt leader of a country and its citizens begin to rage over it when the rest of the world knows they are just uneducated and don't know any better? A farfetched situation, but still. This is essentially what is happening: masses of uneducated people in somewhat-developing countries are upset over others desecrating their sacred religion. How much longer is this kowtowing to animals going to continue?
- nhebb 14y ago
  I understand that it's anti-Muslim, but is that "hate speech"? If it were an anti-Christian video that showcased Jesus as a pedophile and philanderer, would it be labeled as such? It's free speech.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    In the UK: Yes, it probably would be labelled as hate speech. If someone was subject to violence and were called insults based on their Christianity the crime would be dealt with as a hate crime and the sentence would be more severe. Also: The UK for years[1] had laws dealing with Blasphemy (a crime that could only be committed against the Christian church) and laws that dealt with racial prejudice. Since Islam is not christian, nor a race, muslims were left unprotected. You may argue that Christians and jews should not have those protections. I hope you'd agree that it's iniquitous for one group to be left out of the protection of the law. [1] This was changed in 2006 with the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Blasphemy was later repealed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act...)
s_henry_paulson 14y ago
If Google was a government, or youtube was a service that you were paying for, this would be a valid argument.
- ori_b 14y ago
  There's nothing wrong with debating what the most moral course of action for a private company is, even if you have no right to demand them to change.
- doktrin 14y ago
  Google is a major provider of online content. If a major provider of online content begins restricting said content, that is potential cause for concern. You read my post as "Google owes it to me to keep this content available", which is simply not the case.
  - joesb 14y ago
    Google does not host porn either. There are other website for those explicit content.
vixen99 14y ago
Presumably we are not forgetting that Google is simply a business responding to the overall reaction of its customers in Libya and Egypt. Why do some people appear to believe as a subtext message that it's a community service of some kind? It is, of course, but only incidentally.
bradleyland 14y ago
If we're headed down the 'slippery slope' of taking the microphone away from people like Sam Bassil (or whatever his real name is), then please allow me to grab some sunscreen and an inner-tube, because I'm coming along for the ride. There's a lot of fallacious thinking going on here. There's probably some sophisticated name for this type of fallacy, but I don't know what it is. Just because the attackers were wrong for killing innocent people, doesn't make this hate video "right". False dichotomy, maybe? Freedom of speech is about serving truth. It is an expression of the idea is that no one should be silenced for speaking about the truth. If someone is saying something demonstratively false, and that speech is endangering the public, then they should be silenced. This is the same reason you can't expect first amendment protection if you walk in to a theater shouting "FIRE". So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: * Is demonstrably untrue * Endangers the public It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: * Is demonstrably untrue * Endangers the public The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
  - bradleyland 14y ago
    Touché :) However, I will attempt a rebut (despite the fact that I am a card carrying atheist). First, we should be clear that the two conditions above are bound by a logical "AND", not "OR". This means that both must be true in order to circumvent first amendment protection. Also, all expressions of "freedom of religion" do not endanger the public. First amendment protection is about acts, not ideologies. Ironically, it is difficult to prove the second condition until some negative consequence has already occurred. This is the case with many of our laws. Look how hard it is to stop a stalker prior to their actual assault on a victim.
    - uvdiv 14y ago
      I'll evade your difficult idea with a more pragmatic rebuttal: give almost any government in the world some legal speech model like what you describe, and you will be in prison for spreading the "false, dangerous delusion of atheism". The inability of government to determine, and enforce, truth is the only thing protecting your highly unpopular beliefs from censorship. Free speech is in principle the right to speak the truth; in practice it's the right to assert falsehoods which enables it.

This disturbs me on the grounds of "bad habit" precedent alone. Getting accustomed to self-censorship is almost as bad as having it mandated.

by doktrin 14y ago

This disturbs me on the grounds of "bad habit" precedent alone. Getting accustomed to self-censorship is almost as bad as having it mandated.

DanBC 14y ago

Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building? Why is that form of self-censorship acceptable to you?

pstuart 14y ago
That's different and you (should) know it.
- Cushman 14y ago
  How?
  - astine 14y ago
    Meta Comment: pstuart is technically correct, but I think it's much more useful to explain why something is the case than to simply accuse someone of willful ignorance. There's always the possibility that they, or someone else, genuinely does not know.
  - pstuart 14y ago
    Because your example doesn't give the members of the crowd a choice if they want to hear it. Nobody was forced to watch the movie.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      I was expecting something a little more convincing. That's a complete red herring; you never have the choice not to hear something once you've heard it. Does it help if I don't insult you unless you make eye contact with me? After all, if you didn't want to hear what I think about you, you didn't have to catch my eye.
      - pstuart 14y ago
        You might be trolling but I'll play along. The choice occurs when one goes to youtube, searches for the video and clicks play. You should research the "goatse" case right now for more information about this.
jakeonthemove 14y ago
You'd shout that if you hated the persons in that building, and you'd be the one affected in the end. Youtube self-censoring "for the right reasons" now can easily lead to them censoring things in the future not only on the basis that it's "for the right reasons", but also because "we did it before, why not now?", which is among the worst excuses/reasons to do anything... And Google will not not affected - it will be the thousands/millions of people who will not be able to watch the video (which will most likely be somewhat important - they wouldn't censor a cat playing with a tennis ball).
andreasvc 14y ago
That's a straw man, because the grandparent probably does not feel inclined to shout that regardless, so no censorship is necessary. What's more, the troubling aspect here is that a third party is doing the censorship. IMHO they shouldn't legitimize the outrage over this video which is nothing more than amateurish satire.
- DanBC 14y ago
  The gp probably does not feel inclined to shout that, but why? Is it because they've lived a life where they condition themselves to self-censor to some degree? Do we just blurt out everything we think when we meet people? "Hello Bob. My word you're fat! And really rather ugly!" No. We live our lives self censoring to some extent. We don't want to go out of our way to insult someone. There are some exception. We don't mind insulting people for humour. We really don't care about insulting people when politics is involved. There are real reasons why religions need to be challenged. Some bits of religion do very great harm to many people. Doesn't that mean we need to be careful with the offence we cause? Not to avoid any offence, but to make sure it serves some purpose? Causing offence to achieve a goal is probably acceptable. Otherwise you're just yelling "HELLO CUNTS!!!". And to suggest that Youtube is censoring something is -in my opinion- vaguely ridiculous. They're choosing not to distribute a video. They're an international business and they suppress many videos every day. There are very many other online video services which could carry this film. I can't display nipples on Youtube. I can't display HoboFights on Youtube. Why should this video be any different?
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    I think self-censorship is somewhat of a misleading term. Self-control is central to human psychology, but it is different from the idea of censorship where one party prevents the voice of another to be heard because it is against the interests of the former. I certainly agree that this video is not prudent, and hence will not achieve anything. It is quite another question whether this means a company like Google should judge this and take action on it without a court order. The reason to call this censorship is because the decision not to distribute is probably politically motivated. Compared to the examples you cite, this video is very much relevant to public interests, i.e., people will want to know what all the fuss is about. This does not hold for your examples of 'hobo fights' and nipples.
brianchu 14y ago
That analogy is false because what YouTube is doing is blocking video clips that were posted by other people. In your analogy, only you are censoring yourself. Nobody else is censoring you from shouting whatever you want to shout. It would be perfectly fine if individual users voluntarily chose not to upload certain clips. An accurate rhetorical question would be: Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building and before a single sound has emerged from your mouth someone gags you?
- Evbn 14y ago
  Or you know, locked you out before you came into the building.
- edoloughlin 14y ago
  > An accurate rhetorical question would be: Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building and before a single sound has emerged from your mouth someone gags you? Don't property rights trump free speech rights? (IANAL) I.e., it's ok for you to shout whatever you want in public, but I get to throw you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying? Aren't Google just exercising their property rights in this case, common carrier considerations aside?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Don't property rights trump free speech rights? (IANAL) Legally? Free speech has a right is mostly about freedom from governmental interference. Private companies usually can censor whatever they want. But I'm pretty sure people are discussing the moral aspect of this, not the legal. And one can consider that Google shouldn't do this, even if they have the legal right to do so.
anamax 14y ago
When I don't yell "HELLO CUNTS", it's not because someone 1000 miles away might be offended. As far as this particular offense goes, "piss Christ" and so on.... Some animals are more equal than others.

nateberkopec 14y ago

Hm, I don't know. This video is clearly hate speech, and I'm not sure Google should be required to keep content online that has literally caused the deaths of several people. A 'slippery slope' argument doesn't hold up for me in this particular case. EDIT: alright, maybe not literally. But I maintain that the video is hate speech, and that a different standard on "censorship" should apply here.

andreasvc 14y ago
That 'literally' is much too strong. The video was used as a convenient excuse for an attack which was probably already being prepared. Cf. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-was-really-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-w...
Dirlewanger 14y ago
I think this is indeed a slippery slope. This is a VERY slippery slope because of the aftermath. A normal situation of censorship would have a platform (in this case, Google) censoring some sort of content released through them that was critical of the platform. This is almost the opposite; Google clearly is trying to assuage the seething anger for greater good. How far does one go though? What if you have someone release a highly critical video of a massively corrupt leader of a country and its citizens begin to rage over it when the rest of the world knows they are just uneducated and don't know any better? A farfetched situation, but still. This is essentially what is happening: masses of uneducated people in somewhat-developing countries are upset over others desecrating their sacred religion. How much longer is this kowtowing to animals going to continue?
nhebb 14y ago
I understand that it's anti-Muslim, but is that "hate speech"? If it were an anti-Christian video that showcased Jesus as a pedophile and philanderer, would it be labeled as such? It's free speech.
- DanBC 14y ago
  In the UK: Yes, it probably would be labelled as hate speech. If someone was subject to violence and were called insults based on their Christianity the crime would be dealt with as a hate crime and the sentence would be more severe. Also: The UK for years[1] had laws dealing with Blasphemy (a crime that could only be committed against the Christian church) and laws that dealt with racial prejudice. Since Islam is not christian, nor a race, muslims were left unprotected. You may argue that Christians and jews should not have those protections. I hope you'd agree that it's iniquitous for one group to be left out of the protection of the law. [1] This was changed in 2006 with the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Blasphemy was later repealed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act...)

s_henry_paulson 14y ago

If Google was a government, or youtube was a service that you were paying for, this would be a valid argument.

ori_b 14y ago
There's nothing wrong with debating what the most moral course of action for a private company is, even if you have no right to demand them to change.
doktrin 14y ago
Google is a major provider of online content. If a major provider of online content begins restricting said content, that is potential cause for concern. You read my post as "Google owes it to me to keep this content available", which is simply not the case.
- joesb 14y ago
  Google does not host porn either. There are other website for those explicit content.

vixen99 14y ago

Presumably we are not forgetting that Google is simply a business responding to the overall reaction of its customers in Libya and Egypt. Why do some people appear to believe as a subtext message that it's a community service of some kind? It is, of course, but only incidentally.

bradleyland 14y ago

If we're headed down the 'slippery slope' of taking the microphone away from people like Sam Bassil (or whatever his real name is), then please allow me to grab some sunscreen and an inner-tube, because I'm coming along for the ride. There's a lot of fallacious thinking going on here. There's probably some sophisticated name for this type of fallacy, but I don't know what it is. Just because the attackers were wrong for killing innocent people, doesn't make this hate video "right". False dichotomy, maybe? Freedom of speech is about serving truth. It is an expression of the idea is that no one should be silenced for speaking about the truth. If someone is saying something demonstratively false, and that speech is endangering the public, then they should be silenced. This is the same reason you can't expect first amendment protection if you walk in to a theater shouting "FIRE". So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: * Is demonstrably untrue * Endangers the public It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video.

uvdiv 14y ago
So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: * Is demonstrably untrue * Endangers the public The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
- bradleyland 14y ago
  Touché :) However, I will attempt a rebut (despite the fact that I am a card carrying atheist). First, we should be clear that the two conditions above are bound by a logical "AND", not "OR". This means that both must be true in order to circumvent first amendment protection. Also, all expressions of "freedom of religion" do not endanger the public. First amendment protection is about acts, not ideologies. Ironically, it is difficult to prove the second condition until some negative consequence has already occurred. This is the case with many of our laws. Look how hard it is to stop a stalker prior to their actual assault on a victim.
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    I'll evade your difficult idea with a more pragmatic rebuttal: give almost any government in the world some legal speech model like what you describe, and you will be in prison for spreading the "false, dangerous delusion of atheism". The inability of government to determine, and enforce, truth is the only thing protecting your highly unpopular beliefs from censorship. Free speech is in principle the right to speak the truth; in practice it's the right to assert falsehoods which enables it.