6 ms·

'No censorship' doesn't sound like a universal human right at all.

by bored 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago
Why not? (It sounds like one to me.)
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US? Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies. Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security. Freedom of Speech would be amazing if 90% of the things coming out of peoples mouths weren't complete crap or lies.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US? Yes, I think this should be allowed, and yes, I think libel laws censor free speech. Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. Actually, that's exactly what it means. What it doesn't mean is that other people are prevented from disliking you for your speech. If you make a habit out of publishing false claims about people, eventually nobody is going to care about your claims anymore. Newspapers may stop carrying your column or publishing your letters. This isn't a restriction on the freedom of speech, it's merely editing. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. Talking to me is not a crime. Me assaulting you is. Therefore, I'm confused as to why you'd expect this outcome. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies. Or I could just write an article with my side of the story. No need to involve the courts when we are both free to communicate. Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security. The courts have upheld our right to publish the location of the secret button. Remember the MIT students that hacked the Charlie Card? The order to prevent the students from explaining their methodology was overturned. (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.html http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.htm...) Also, so what if I am a "homosexual terrorist pedophile", anyway?
yummyfajitas 17y ago
So if free speech is not a universal human right, then which humans (if any) deserve this right? Only Americans? I'm also curious if Chinese people living in America deserve this right. Could you lay out, in broad strokes, which groups of people deserve which packages of rights?
- jibiki 17y ago
  I agree that free speech is a human right, for some definition of free speech. I don't agree that "no censorship" is a human right. If NBC wants to start running a special on how Jews are Satan's children, then I want the FCC to censor them. You don't have the right to say whatever you want on your government granted airwave monopoly. As for bored's comment, it is an obvious exclusion of the middle. Saying "China's censorship is bad" is not at all the same as saying "no censorship is a universal human right."
  - ajju 17y ago
    NBC is a company. Free speech is a human right.
    - jibiki 17y ago
      > NBC is a company. Free speech is a human right. I don't quite see what you're saying. For instance, free speech gives companies the right to publish books that criticize the government. If you are saying that all individuals should be free to say whatever they want, then I assure you that your views are extreme. Do you believe that everyone has the right to put up billboards covered in child pornography?
      - ajju 17y ago
        "Saying what you want" is not a right that supersedes other laws. No one can put up billboards (or even possess) child pornography because it is a heinous crime. Similarly, there are other limitations on free speech like shouting "Bomb" in a crowded theater. It is actually legal (though obviously immoral) for a human being to say bigoted things about any religion. NBC cannot run a special saying the same thing because there are (quite likely, IANAL) laws against broadcasting hate speech on T.V. and the market itself also acts as a censor in NBC's case. Saying "free speech should be a Universal right of individuals" is not equivalent to saying "NBC should be able to broadcast a special propagating hate speech". You are claiming it is. So Janet Jackson can say fuck on CBS and she can't be punished for it but CBS can. I am pretty sure there is no law preventing a random person from spouting hate speech on TV (eg those people who shouted gays are the children of satan and other insults at military funerals) although there are quite likely laws requiring TV stations to take all measures to avoid giving such guys a platform.

'No censorship' doesn't sound like a universal human right at all.

by bored 17y ago

'No censorship' doesn't sound like a universal human right at all.

jrockway 17y ago

Why not? (It sounds like one to me.)

electromagnetic 17y ago
Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US? Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies. Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security. Freedom of Speech would be amazing if 90% of the things coming out of peoples mouths weren't complete crap or lies.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US? Yes, I think this should be allowed, and yes, I think libel laws censor free speech. Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. Actually, that's exactly what it means. What it doesn't mean is that other people are prevented from disliking you for your speech. If you make a habit out of publishing false claims about people, eventually nobody is going to care about your claims anymore. Newspapers may stop carrying your column or publishing your letters. This isn't a restriction on the freedom of speech, it's merely editing. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. Talking to me is not a crime. Me assaulting you is. Therefore, I'm confused as to why you'd expect this outcome. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies. Or I could just write an article with my side of the story. No need to involve the courts when we are both free to communicate. Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security. The courts have upheld our right to publish the location of the secret button. Remember the MIT students that hacked the Charlie Card? The order to prevent the students from explaining their methodology was overturned. (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.html http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.htm...) Also, so what if I am a "homosexual terrorist pedophile", anyway?

yummyfajitas 17y ago

So if free speech is not a universal human right, then which humans (if any) deserve this right? Only Americans? I'm also curious if Chinese people living in America deserve this right. Could you lay out, in broad strokes, which groups of people deserve which packages of rights?

jibiki 17y ago
I agree that free speech is a human right, for some definition of free speech. I don't agree that "no censorship" is a human right. If NBC wants to start running a special on how Jews are Satan's children, then I want the FCC to censor them. You don't have the right to say whatever you want on your government granted airwave monopoly. As for bored's comment, it is an obvious exclusion of the middle. Saying "China's censorship is bad" is not at all the same as saying "no censorship is a universal human right."
- ajju 17y ago
  NBC is a company. Free speech is a human right.
  - jibiki 17y ago
    > NBC is a company. Free speech is a human right. I don't quite see what you're saying. For instance, free speech gives companies the right to publish books that criticize the government. If you are saying that all individuals should be free to say whatever they want, then I assure you that your views are extreme. Do you believe that everyone has the right to put up billboards covered in child pornography?
    - ajju 17y ago
      "Saying what you want" is not a right that supersedes other laws. No one can put up billboards (or even possess) child pornography because it is a heinous crime. Similarly, there are other limitations on free speech like shouting "Bomb" in a crowded theater. It is actually legal (though obviously immoral) for a human being to say bigoted things about any religion. NBC cannot run a special saying the same thing because there are (quite likely, IANAL) laws against broadcasting hate speech on T.V. and the market itself also acts as a censor in NBC's case. Saying "free speech should be a Universal right of individuals" is not equivalent to saying "NBC should be able to broadcast a special propagating hate speech". You are claiming it is. So Janet Jackson can say fuck on CBS and she can't be punished for it but CBS can. I am pretty sure there is no law preventing a random person from spouting hate speech on TV (eg those people who shouted gays are the children of satan and other insults at military funerals) although there are quite likely laws requiring TV stations to take all measures to avoid giving such guys a platform.