Extreme or objectionable views. Express or suppress?

[truconstruct]

I have given an explanation of how the line can be determined. It comes from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and is basically the harm principle. Freedom of speech is an important right that should not be relinquished easily however, where on balance there is more harm from allowing a view to be expressed than not, a consequentialist balancing act that includes a consideration of the fact allowing freedom of speech is a good for society as a principle. Then when that balance tips in favour of harm then society thoguh its democratic institutions should be empowered and not hindered in legislating and enforcing restrictions proportionately for the good of society.

 

There's nothing in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" that says views that 'do no good' should be cencored.

 

Very clearly you are moving the goal posts, rather worrying concidering you want to introduce cencoreship but won't define how you will do it or who decides, or what would be cencored.

[Tony]

Sort of.

 

So under what circumstances do you think expressing a view inappropriate? and do you think those situations require sanctions?

 

You already asked that question and I responded. In case you missed it:

 

Do you think someone expressing paedophile views, should be allowed to do so?

 

Yes, at the right time and place. It allows us to form extended and knowledgeable attitudes. Ignorance is foolish, not bliss, but neither would SF be the right place to do it.

 

Sanctions should be appropriate. No more, no less, but total censorship is not a sanction that I could support.

[truconstruct]

harm... using 'do no good' was me being sloppy. My apologies.

 

OK, so what harm is being done by this website you talked of?

[Photofit Ed]

It is obscene to employ foreign workers in this country when we have ONE MILLION unemployed 16 to 24 year olds. Is that view extreme and objectionable, or is it common sense?

[Wildcat]

There's nothing in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" that says views that 'do no good' should be cencored.

 

Very clearly you are moving the goal posts, rather worrying concidering you want to introduce cencoreship but won't define how you will do it or who decides, or what would be cencored.

 

I meant 'harm' my apologies:

 

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

[Wildcat]

OK, so what harm is being done by this website you talked of?

 

Encouraging and spreading false information that would encourage damage to another person.

[Wildcat]

It is obscene to employ foreign workers in this country when we have ONE MILLION unemployed 16 to 24 year olds. Is that view extreme and objectionable, or is it common sense?

 

None of them. It is simply wrong.

[Tony]

I meant 'harm' my apologies:

 

What views could cause harm so that you would totally suppress them?

[Br8inend]

I would generally agree with you there but I would go further and say that those views which do incite hatred or violence should be expressed with my previous caveats. By doing so we learn where our societal an personal boundary lies which then allows us to formulate a position and any sanction that we see fit.

 

I do not consider total censorship to be a sanction though.

 

Its alright to go to war, you may hear incitement to violence in the army. The double standards are remarkable. I'm sure the whole country is being incited to hate the bnp. Its a stupid law.

[truconstruct]

Encouraging and spreading false information that would encourage damage to another person.

 

Sorry I don't quite get that, what's false and how would it damage anyone.