Extreme or objectionable views. Express or suppress?

[pininsho]

I take it you appreciate that your viewpoint on this is an unusual one?

 

It's not as unusual as you may think.

I know that every day in this country there are hundreds of 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 year olds talking to thousands of 11 and 12 year olds about sex.

 

Would you condemn someone for taking the opposite view?

 

See my last post.

[Wildcat]

Yes because they're censoring it on behalf of 1 billion chinese who haven't been given the freedom to choose for themselves whether/what they wish to ignore on the internet.

Nice try at an analogy but the proper analogy would be to say that the British government are stopping it coming through your letter box whether you want it or not.

 

The British Govt are elected by us and therefore if they decide to block paedophile websites or as they do now simply criminalise access to them... then doing so would be with our collective consent.

[Alien]

As the 10 year old has some understanding then it would probably be even easier for me to tell whether he/she is comfortable with the conversation. If not then we would leave. The 50 year old would still be entitled to hold his views and to express them but we wouldn't be around to hear it.

 

Sorry pininsho but I did stress that you were taken out from the scenario....do you think it's ok for a child and an adult to be together when that adult has intent and that intent is gained through freedom of speech? You have to understand that you as an adult can throw the junk mail in the bin...the child may not have the luxury of that. Or put it another way...would you or would you not have a problem with that scenario even though you knew your child was safe?

 

Btw..this has nothing to do with mine, yours or anyone else's sexual preferences/prejudices, just in case someone decides to get something in their head.

[pininsho]

The British Govt are elected by us and therefore if they decide to block paedophile websites... then doing so would be with our collective consent.

 

What's somebody having sex with a child who hasn't/can't consent to it and then putting it over the internet got to do with freedom of speech?

[pininsho]

Sorry pininsho but I did stress that you were taken out from the scenario....do you think it's ok for a child and an adult to be together when that adult has intent and that intent is gained through freedom of speech? You have to understand that you as an adult can throw the junk mail in the bin...the child may not have the luxury of that. Or put it another way...would you or would you not have a problem with that scenario even though you knew your child was safe?

 

Sorry.....missed the bit where I was taken out of the scenario. I, as an adult, am responsible for the safety of my child so if there is any doubt as to the intentions of said 50 year old then my child wouldn't be there. That still doesn't change the fact that the 50 year old is still entitled to hold his/her views and to express (discuss) them.

[Alien]

Sorry.....missed the bit where I was taken out of the scenario. I, as an adult, am responsible for the safety of my child so if there is any doubt as to the intentions of said 50 year old then my child wouldn't be there. That still doesn't change the fact that the 50 year old is still entitled to hold his/her views and to express (discuss) them.

 

 

Ok...I think we've all established that thought can't be controlled...generally, and rightly it shouldn't be.

 

Do you have any scenario where Extreme or objectionable views (noting that the thought has progressed to an action) should be applied through censorship?

 

Noting back to your original statement "third parties should also take responsibilities"*. Do you not think that the originator should also take responsibility also?

 

* it's not a direct quote but more an inference. (can't be bothered to cut n paste)

[truconstruct]

How do you suppress extreme or objectionable views?

 

The ultimate method of suppresion is extermination of the individuals holding said views.

 

A very dangerouse path to tread.

[pininsho]

Ok...I think we've all established that thought can't be controlled...generally, and rightly it shouldn't be.

 

Do you have any scenario where Extreme or objectionable views (noting that the thought has progressed to an action) should be applied through censorship?

 

Noting back to your original statement "third parties should also take responsibilities"*. Do you not think that the originator should also take responsibility also?

 

* it's not a direct quote but more an inference. (can't be bothered to cut n paste)

 

As far as I'm concerned censorship deals exclusively with limiting ideas, opinions, views and thoughts and attempts to suppress the distribution of these 'thought processes'.

When we start discussing people acting on these 'thought processes' then that's where censorship finishes and criminal/civil law comes into action. As far as I'm concerned anybody should be able to do anything they like with the consent of another person as long as it doesn't harm a third party that hasn't consented to a particular course of action.

However I would go even further and say that anybody is allowed to break any law they choose as long as they understand and are prepared to take the consequences for their illegal actions. And yes that does mean murder, rape, child abuse etc.

[Wildcat]

As far as I'm concerned censorship deals exclusively with limiting ideas, opinions, views and thoughts and attempts to suppress the distribution of these 'thought processes'.

When we start discussing people acting on these 'thought processes' then that's where censorship finishes and criminal/civil law comes into action. As far as I'm concerned anybody should be able to do anything they like with the consent of another person as long as it doesn't harm a third party that hasn't consented to a particular course of action.

However I would go even further and say that anybody is allowed to break any law they choose as long as they understand and are prepared to take the consequences for their illegal actions. And yes that does mean murder, rape, child abuse etc.

 

Being allowed to break the law is a strange use of language. Who is allowing this?

 

Do you think that actions can be influenced by propoganda? Billions are spent on Marketing for that purpose, and mostly the message they spread is harmless. However the money spent on Marketing illustrates that business thinks propoganda is effective in influencing behaviour.

 

Where that propoganda is intended to cause harm, and does cause harm. Why do you think society shouldn't decide to censor it? Simply referring to a principle like freedom of speech, is insufficient. Rights and Freedoms are justified by their effect of serving a healthy society, freedom of speech is no different. There should of course be caution and censorship should be a last resort and proportionate, but where that propoganda causes harm to society I cannot see a good reason in extreme circumstances to use censorship to limit harm to society.

[pininsho]

Being allowed to break the law is a strange use of language. Who is allowing this?

 

I could respond by saying the secular laws that we live by are allowing us to break the law for nowhere in secular law does it say 'thou shalt not kill' etc, it simply gives us information about what punishment may be coming our way if we choose to break a law and get caught and convicted.

However you seem to have a problem with me using the word allowing so changing the word from allowing to able may make the point clearer.

 

Do you think that actions can be influenced by propoganda?

 

Yes, but how would you define propoganda?

 

Billions are spent on Marketing for that purpose, and mostly the message they spread is harmless.

 

That's debatable.

 

However the money spent on Marketing illustrates that business thinks propoganda is effective in influencing behaviour.

 

Yes, but how and to what effect?

 

Where that propoganda is intended to cause harm, and does cause harm. Why do you think society shouldn't decide to censor it?

 

It depends what your interpretation of harm is. For example some people may think that having a monocultural society is harmful, others may think that having a multicultural society is harmful.

Who's going to decide and who's going to censor those that don't agree?

 

Simply referring to a principle like freedom of speech, is insufficient.

 

Why, when it encompasses the entire ethos of what it means to be a highly intelligent primate that has communication as the very core of its being?

 

Rights and Freedoms are justified by their effect of serving a healthy society, freedom of speech is no different.

 

They are justified whether there is anything resembling a society or whether we're all just a group of individuals living alone or in small family groups.

On top of that, people aren't here to 'serve a healthy society' (unless they wish to), society is there to support the individual in times of need and to enable individuals to reach their full potential.

 

There should of course be caution and censorship should be a last resort and proportionate,

 

My bold.

Yet again your using very subjective language that's difficult to quantify until you see it in action and by then it's probably too late because you've already lost your freedoms through proportianate censorship implemented as a last resort.

 

but where that propoganda causes harm to society I cannot see a good reason in extreme circumstances to use censorship to limit harm to society.

 

I think you might need to edit this bit as I don't think you're saying what you mean (unless you've done a complete u-turn or I've read it wrong).