Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Minibit, Nov 10, 2014.

  1. I want a nice, clean debate here, people. No name calling, hair pulling, or bullshit passive-aggression <3

    How do you feel about censorship? In particular:

    What sorts of things are ok to censor and why?

    Should minors have more censored from them than adults? Is censoring children futile with the accessibility of the Internet?

    In what context is something ok to be censored? Is it not ok in another context?

    Is the current system of what does/doesn't get censored in our media, and who chooses whether or not to censor it fair? If not, what could be done to fix it?

    Are warning labels sufficient substitutes for outright censoring?
  2. What sorts of things are ok to censor and why?:

    For media in particular, I don't really think much of anything should be censored for those of age. If people want to see horrific gore, gratuitous sexual content, or listen to excessive swearing and ilk, then they should be allowed to. Those who don't? They won't (or shouldn't) be searching for it in the first place.

    Should minors have more censored from them than adults? Is censoring children futile with the accessibility of the Internet?:

    Yes, but I think the way we treat censorship of content when minors are concerned needs to change. If your kid manages to search up something you deem obscene or not suitable for minors, don't freak out about it. Don't make them feel bad for being curious. That just ensures that when they go looking it up again, it's behind your back. And for some children, knowing that it's something that squiks their parents is incentive to do it more. Be calm and explain as best you can why you don't want them to be looking into these things. Or if your kid's a bit older, help them explore what they're curious about, steering him/her away from some of the more harmful material out there.

    This ties into the internet bit. The internet/television/video games/books are not babysitters. Be invested and involved with your children, and take an interest in what they're being exposed to.

    In what context is something ok to be censored? Is it not ok in another context?:

    In casual, personal viewing, I think anything should go. Which means I don't think any media that isn't directly targeting children should need censorship. In a more professional, or public environments, where tastes and comfort levels vary, there should be more censorship of explicit language/nudity/violence.

    Is the current system of what does/doesn't get censored in our media, and who chooses whether or not to censor it fair? If not, what could be done to fix it?:

    I'm not entirely knowledgable about who's in charge when it comes to censorship and what their policies on that are. Should probably look into that…

    Are warning labels sufficient substitutes for outright censoring?:

    They should be, but that puts the responsibility on the viewer, and people tend not to like that. For some reason.
    • Like Like x 4
  3. I am against any sort of censorship with some exception. Hate speech. I believe hate speech of anykind that propagates and encourages violence and mistreatment of ethnicities and other social groups on a public forum should be subject to censorship.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. I will be using profanity and language some might find offensive in this post, including racial slurs for the purpose of example. Deal with it or don't read it.

    What sorts of things are ok to censor and why?

    Acts and statements made in a public space that advocate illegal action, especially violent action, except when done in an artistic or entertainment medium. If someone wants to talk about how niggers are awful, okay, they're a dick, but free speech is in play; if they instead say niggers are awful and need to be killed like dogs in the street, yeahhhh, censoring that is fine. For the same exact reasons I would also say it's fine to censor people who tell others to go pirate things. Anything that could directly and logically influence people to go commit crimes is reasonable to censor, and again this is especially true for advocating violence. It's not okay to encourage crime, those things are illegal for a reason, so censoring that shit is okay by me.

    I will, however, add two exceptions to this. First, some things are illegal but honestly who gives a shit if you tell people to do it, like jaywalking, so those can slide by; when I say "crime" and "illegal action" I mean actual serious crimes that do some kind of harm to other people and have actual jail time sentences attached to them. Second, when it comes to historically important items of hate speech advocating violence (such as the speeches and writings of Hitler and various other shitbags), I feel that it is very important that they not only remain uncensored but that people be exposed to them so they can understand what sort of horrid things have happened in our history. As the saying goes, those who don't learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. You can't really teach people about Hitler and why he was so awful and also censor his awfulness, else it loses its impact and makes the lesson unimportant.

    That's pretty much it. That's the only thing I can think of that is okay to be blanket censored.

    Should minors have more censored from them than adults? Is censoring children futile with the accessibility of the Internet?

    Eh, it's ultimately futile, but it's also reasonable to censor certain things from minors. Mainly the youngest of minors, like prepubescent kids. There's no reason to show young children a graphic sex scene, for example. Censoring graphic violence is also okay for young kids. It's not likely to actually fuck them up unless you show it to them before they can fully distinguish the difference between reality and fiction, but even after that point why would you show a gory slasher film to like a 10 year old? They almost universally don't have the mental development to be able to process those things in a reasonable manner, even knowing it's fiction.

    But honestly, once they get past puberty it's basically pointless. Even before the internet existed the older age bracket of minors was pretty persistent and crafty in viewing that sex and violence that adults tried to keep away from them. There's a natural curiosity there, especially as it pertains to sex, and barring their access to it only makes it more influential to them when they finally get hold of it (because instead of just being another thing that exists it's now built up in their mind as a titillating taboo). Let the ~13 year old kids watch bloody murder movies and stuff with not-very-graphic sex scenes in it, whatever, it's fine. It'd be reasonable to match age-gated pornography to the local age of consent, but again, basically futile thanks the internet and hormones and developing libidos.

    In what context is something ok to be censored? Is it not ok in another context?

    See my first and second answers for a full answer of what context it's okay to censor things in.

    It is not okay to censor art and entertainment, aside from the youth exceptions above, in almost any way or context. If something is blatantly and clearly calling for the exterminations of the Jews and telling people to go and murder all Jews they can find, with only a thin veneer of artistic shit over it to try to make it acceptable, okay go ahead and censor it. If instead it's something like a World War II era movie or something with a Hitler-esque character and includes character speeches that say stuff like "kill all the kike scum" and whatnot, something that is clearly a piece of art or entertainment that is not actually advocating such action but just contains a character who thinks that way, it is not okay to censor that. I don't care if there's a character that is literally screaming and ranting for minutes on end about how the Zionist machine is secretly oppressing the world and the only way to break free is to finish what Hitler started, as long as it's clearly the character within the piece of fiction supporting these statements with no intent to make real people think the same things then it should remain wholly uncensored.

    In a related but broader context, it is not okay to censor something just because some particular group is offended by it. There's a very popular Stephen Fry quote that has gone around the internet attached to images of his face that explains this quite well: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." There's also a related but more succinct version of the same sentiment that comes from Ricky Gervais: "No one has the right not to be offended, and don't forget, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're in the right."

    Everyone has the right to be offended if they so feel the need, but at the same time everyone should have the right to express their thoughts however they would like so far as they are not breaking laws or inciting law breaking. If you don't like that someone said something offensive, stop talking to them or viewing their art/entertainment, don't try to fucking censor them because you're upset. That's bullshit. I don't care what kind of vile filth someone is spewing, so long as they are not causing real physical harm, breaking laws, or telling others to do so, then it should not be censored. I just remembered another quote that relates to the matter, often falsely attributed to Voltaire when it was actually first said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in a biography to paraphrase Voltaire's stance on a matter: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That's one of the basic principles of freedom of speech, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

    Is the current system of what does/doesn't get censored in our media, and who chooses whether or not to censor it fair? If not, what could be done to fix it?

    Fair? Not particularly. I'll focus on movies and video games here because those are the two areas of media where I actually know a good deal about the censorship involved. No idea what goes on with music, television, book, or other media censorship at more than a very general level; on that general level, I don't like censorship, so it's fair to assume I'm not okay with any of it that's done to mediums other than video games or movies unless it falls under my already listed exceptions.

    In the US, censorship of media is often done through soft but commercially crippling methods rather than actually blocking certain things from being viewed. They slap ratings on media that act as age gates, and while these ratings are not actually enforced by federal law, they are pretty effectively set in stone because media providers will bar people from watching or buying something that is rated to say they are too young for it. These are not government-appointed groups, they are organizations formed by the industries themselves to regulate their products. The Motion Picture Association of America was formed by the big six Hollywood movies studios back in 1922, and it's been in the business of censoring film content since 1930, which is pretty strictly enforced in theaters around the country despite there being no laws in most places saying that young children cannot watch R-rated movies. The Entertainment Software Rating Board was formed by four of the big game developers and publishers in response to Congress considering making a formal legal body to regulate video games after public outcry about violent and sexual content present in some of them (particularly Mortal Kombat and Night Trap); just like with film ratings, places that sell video games will almost never sell them to people younger than the rating says is okay.

    So, you've got these self-regulating bodies formed from within the industry itself that decide what ratings to put on games. On the face that might seem great, because it's not the government censoring media, but in truth it's just a less direct kind of censorship. Instead of saying "no, you cannot do that," if they find something objectionable they say "okay, we'll give you the highest level content rating." What does that mean in technical terms? The top two ratings for movies are R ("People under 17 years may only be admitted if accompanied by a parent or guardian") and NC-17 ("This film is exclusively adult in content and people under 18 are not admitted"); for video games it's M/Mature ("Games with this rating contain content which the board believes is suitable for those aged 17 years and older") and AO/Adults Only ("Games with this rating contain content which the board believes is unsuitable for people under 18 years of age"); so the technical difference is basically one year of age. What does this mean in practical terms? Theaters and video game sellers will often flat out refuse to show or stock anything with the highest rating because it's inappropriate, thus it would mean that the product will be almost guaranteed to flop and not make much money. This forces the content producers, which are businesses first and foremost so they want to make money on their products, to cut out content the ratings boards don't like until they'll agree to drop it down to the second highest rating and back into commercial viability. This is absolutely and unequivocally a form of censorship.

    What's worse is that the lines between the various ratings levels are quite stupid. Movies could have no violence or sex, but they have a character say "fuck" a few times so it gets slapped with a PG-13 rating. Some movies can be full of violence and get away with a PG-13 rating, but cut out most of the violence and throw in a romantic subplot that includes a sex scene and might instead be rated R. It's similar for video games: a game with very mild and cartoony violence and no cursing could be rated E/Everyone, but add just one joke about boobs and you're probably getting a T/Teen rating for crude humor. It's ridiculous, especially with video games. For example, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was temporarily rated AO because if you modified the game (meaning it was not accessible in normal game play at all) you could access a totally non-graphic sex minigame that just showed poorly rendered models of the player character and various girls getting into sexual positions and making the motions with no genitals or anything actually visible; what makes this ridiculous is the fact that the game got by just fine with an M rating when it had basically the same exact sound files accessible through normal play (just moans and goofy things they say), plus extreme violence like beating people to death with a rubber dildo or getting a tank and blowing fucking everything up, because apparently gratuitous murder is less offensive than clothed character models dry humping. Sex and anything pertaining to it is absolutely awful and totally offensive as far as these ratings boards are concerned, which I find to be utterly ridiculous.

    The system could be improved by changing the rating systems. Make a "family friendly" rating and a "contains mature content" rating, where the split is stuff you'd be fine with 8 year old kids (or whatever age you want, young children, basically keep this as what the PG/E ratings are today) viewing and everything else in the group for mature content. Include a list of what specific items of mature content are present in each thing, rather than saying "oh, you hit seven sections of mature content, you get an M/R rating instead of a T/PG-13." Then you let businesses decide just which things they'll actually stock, instead of the whole "omg no, can't have the top rating stuff because that's evil and wrong!!!" thing that goes on currently. Sure, they still won't want to provide pornography to minors, but at least it'd make it so each piece of media needs to actually be looked at with a critical eye by both providers and consumers to decide what they want to do with it. This would be good for lessening censorship of content for minors as well: let parents actually see that what would be a scary M rated game just has extreme cartoon violence, alcohol use, and crude humor instead of thinking it's basically porn or murderporn, and they can decide based on the actual content rather than the broad rating whether or not their kid can have it. Much better than allowing these self-regulating groups to censor shit with rating threats.

    Are warning labels sufficient substitutes for outright censoring?

    Absolutely. As per my above suggestion for how to fix media censorship in the US, I think that instead of outright censoring things you should provide a list of what content exists in a piece of media. Let people decide whether or not they want to view the thing based on its content instead of blindly following ratings. It could also be quite nice for people who have specific things that they're not okay with viewing. For instance, someone who has been raped or someone who was abused as a child could see that a movie that would be just an R rating under the current system for sexual content and violence has a rape scene or contains child abuse scenes and decide to avoid it because they don't want to see such things. Much better than the current system of "OMG THAT SAYS ADULTS ONLY THEREFORE IT IS AWFUL AND MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE!!!"

    TL;DR fuck censorship right in the ass
    • Like Like x 3
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 3
  5. I'm still upset that my 18+ rated copy of South Park: The Stick of Truth here in the United Kingdom was censored and I was unable to perform an abortion on Randy. :(

    Stupid game.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. I really, really hate censorship. Hate it! I feel like censorship is entirely subjective to personality, culture, and society... and most of the time it's needless and counter intuitive. >:[ I also believe people confuse censorship with making appropriate content. It's really not the same thing.

    What sorts of things are ok to censor and why? I have no way to answer this one. ;_; Completely subjective.

    Should minors have more censored from them than adults? Is censoring children futile with the accessibility of the Internet? I don't think kids need to be exposed to porn and stuff like that, but that again isn't censorship, but content monitoring. You wouldn't put a mommy-daddy fuck scene in a children's book. It's not censoring, it's just age appropriate content.

    In what context is something ok to be censored? Is it not ok in another context? Censoring sucks. If you showed appropriate content WHEN appropriate, there is no need for censorship. If you're picking a movie to show at the park for families, obviously you'd pick a movie that had family friendly content instead of one filled with curse words and sex scenes and having to bleep words or cut scenes.

    Is the current system of what does/doesn't get censored in our media, and who chooses whether or not to censor it fair? If not, what could be done to fix it? NO MORE CENSORING. >:[ Content Ratings YES.

    Are warning labels sufficient substitutes for outright censoring? *repeats above statement!*
    • Like Like x 3
  7. What sorts of things are ok to censor and why?
    -Oh, censor everything. It makes it more challenging to find ways to get around it. By defeating these challenges, I get more EXP and therefore more level ups!

    Should minors have more censored from them than adults? Is censoring children futile with the accessibility of the Internet?
    -Resistance is futile. Please resist, because it is entertaining to me.

    In what context is something ok to be censored? Is it not ok in another context?

    Is the current system of what does/doesn't get censored in our media, and who chooses whether or not to censor it fair? If not, what could be done to fix it?

    -Here's how you fix it:


    Are warning labels sufficient substitutes for outright censoring?

    • Go Home, You're Drunk Go Home, You're Drunk x 1

  8. Ultimately I don't believe anything is suitable for being censored. Things considered too vulgar for age groups generally get a rating system attributed to them (like in games or movies), so it's up to you to go into something understanding the contents.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. What sorts of things are ok to censor and why?

    Graphic sexual or violent content, especially involving children, either as the intended audience or as participants in the film. The reason being that a child is not equipped to handle violent and sexual content and needs to be guided up to that point. You don't just drop a ten year old into a hardcore pornography fetish film, you explain to them what sex is, and what the sexes (genders) are, and identity, and help them learn the basics in a healthy environment first before you ever allow that to be exposed to them. The same should go for extreme violence, people being dismembered and eviscerated is not something you want a ten year old being desensitized of. That's just asking for trouble later down the road.

    Now if we're talking teenagers, you should start exposing them to more of this stuff. Expose them to extraordinary violence and sexual content while they're still living with parents who can explain things to them and help guide them and nurture them, let them explore this stuff in the safety of home and family, rather than out in the real world. As the real world is a far more unforgiving place of mistakes.

    Should minors have more censored from them than adults? Is censoring children futile with the accessibility of the Internet?

    Yes and ultimately yes. If just so a child can learn to find these types of things for themselves when they're ready for it rather than when we force it upon them. If a child is eager to learn something, no amount of censorship will stop him or her from ultimately finding out whatever it is, but we shouldn't just let Kim Kardashian's ass hang out everywhere for kids to see.

    Basically, think of it this way: If a child is ready to search for that kind of content, and encounters it, one of two things occurs.
    A. The child learned how to be an independent person capable of bypassing content filters to find the truth. This is a fucking important skill to have in the modern world.
    B. The child learned why some content is not just allowed to be paraded on the streets after scaring/scarring themselves. Parental units are on standby to assist the child in the event that the child is unable to learn how to cope with the content themselves.

    Either way, winning. In the same sense as Santa Claus. We know it's a lie, but we tell kids about him anyway because one day they'll learn the all important lesson: That authority figures, no matter how caring, sometimes lie to them.

    In what context is something ok to be censored? Is it not ok in another context?

    When it would be inappropriate for children to view in the context of normal childhood development, or when the content is so extreme that a person should fairly be warned about what it is before viewing. Otherwise? No.

    Is the current system of what does/doesn't get censored in our media, and who chooses whether or not to censor it fair? If not, what could be done to fix it?

    No, and it'll never be fair. Human beings are filled with conjecture and belief and so long as society is run upon how a person feels rather than what is, so long as it's acceptable in society to denote children into groups based on ethnicity and religion and political beliefs based mostly on that of their parents... You will never see a fair world. You will never see a world where everyone is treated equally, white or black, man or woman, child or adult, and because of that, you will never see a world where all groups are censored equally.

    Are warning labels sufficient substitutes for outright censoring?

    Kinda?... For things such as video games and film, certainly: It's telling you what content is inside on the box and allowing you to decide if it is suitable for viewing or not. For things like public access television? Unless the warning label is constantly available, say, in a square box in the upper right called "trigger warning: this talks about fat people you stupid fucking cunt", there's no possible way to warning label live content like that. Then, censorship may be appropriate depending on the outlet and what its purpose is. For instance, the news should only show graphic content if it actually contributes to the story and would damage the integrity of the story otherwise to not show it.

    Regardless, in a perfect world, there should be no censorship. We however don't live in a perfect world. The Simpsons did an episode on it that I think summarizes it perfectly, I can't remember which one, but essentially, Marge notices her children aping some of the antics of the cartoon "Itchy and Scratchy", hitting each other like they do in the show because they think it's funny. Being less amused, she tries and succeeds to get the show censored, only to result in her children being bored by the lack of cartoon violence and watching as other content which she enjoys getting censored later under similar guidelines, and finding herself stuck in a conundrum. On the one hand, we can't pretend that media has zero influence on children, because it blatantly has influence on the developing psyche of a child. Do we really want to drown a child's brain in an endless sea of glorified violence and sexual content? Do we really want to raise a generation like that? It's one thing to let a child see, say, Rambo, and watch Sylvester Stallone cut up a bunch of dudes in gloriously violent HD action, but do we really want to constantly drown a child in that kind of violence until they're so desensitized to it that real life occurrences of massacres in the news results merely in a shrug of apathy?

    Do we really want to live in that world?

    We know that a world drowning in constant censorship until we live in a police state is an ugly thing, but a world where children have early access to drugs, gambling, sex, and graphic violence, is not an ideal world either. It's all about balance, and finding the best possible answer for the largest section of the population. Do I think we overreact with censorship a lot? Fuck yeah we do. The fact that we censor the word "fuck" when it has no inherent meaning beyond what we attribute to it is just a bloody daft thing to do, but to pretend censorship doesn't have some productive role in society is just viewing yet another issue in black and white when we live in a world of greys.
  10. What sorts of things are ok to censor and why?
    In my personal opinion, censorship as it is doesn't seem to be appropriate. Sure, some things can be pretty sensitive to others, but taking something like an opinion or piece of media away from everyone because of a minority's opinion is just unfair to me. Warning tags are plenty, and people den 'censor' and avoid things they personally find offensive without ruining things for everyone else who may be less sensitive or thin-skinned to a topic.

    Should minors have more censored from them than adults? Is censoring children futile with the accessibility of the Internet?
    Oh boy, as a minor myself I think censorship is tricky with kids, but the way it is now is stupid and overall worse for kids. With the internet now and everything that's on it as well as the easy access to it, I think censoring anything to a person beyond age 9 or 10 is silly and will in the end do nothing. If they're curious, they'll simply look it up. If they're not, they'll find it out in due time or when they actually are ready. And when they kid is very young, I think the parents should be mostly responsible for what they do and do not censor. All I know about that is that hyper-sheltered kids tend to blow up in adulthood, so I am glad my parents have given me freedom growing up and let me explore more mature things with them there to serve as guides and resources.

    In what context is something ok to be censored? Is it not ok in another context?
    The only context I think censorship is ok is when it is done by an individual and not pressed onto others. beyond that, I do not believe in censorship.

    Are warning labels sufficient substitutes for outright censoring?
    I absolutely think that warnings are enough, and people should on their own be able to decide if they want to view or avoid the labeled content. Again, taking it away from everyone because it startles one person is not right and instead that one person should be compensated with a brief warning to tell them they're about to view something they may dislike.

    This is all I had time to post <.<
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Censor everything. Or censor nothing.

    If you hide the truth then you are worse then the liar.
  12. Would it upset you more to see child pornography in this post, or 'hate speech'? Racism is not the be all and end all of unacceptable behaviours. If exceptions are to be made to a total lack of censorship, they're not for hate speech. Banning hate speech has the same effect on hate that banning alcohol has on alcohol consumption: the exact opposite effect that you're looking to achieve.

    Things should be censored if they're grossly obscene or otherwise entirely inappropriate for the context in which they're being presented. Free exchange of ideas, including ideas that someone might disagree with, is essential to ensure a free society.
  13. The call for violence and discrimination of others is never acceptable. History have showed why. As for your first point. Childpornogrophy is illegal for a reason. Its well withing the bounds of sensible censorship allready. Trying to justify the allowance of hate speech by comparing it to something as vile as childpornography? Really? Then again, you do sport a modified swastika as your avatar :P.
    #13 Hellis, Nov 13, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014
  14. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not live in an Orwellian nightmare. I don't care how doubleplusgood of an effect banning certain ideas might have on society: it is completely unacceptable to any degree. If you're not directly inciting an immediate act of violence (or other such crime), the government shouldn't be able to stop you from expressing an idea.

    Some people might not enjoy being called Nazis, Hellis. I'll have you know that the kind of censorship you're advocating—limiting the expression of anything politically inexpedient—was actually widely practised by the National Socialist regime in Germany. I am not an advocate of hate, but I am a counter-advocate of trying to purge certain ideas from society's collective consciousness, regardless of whether or not those ideas are something I agree with.
    #14 The Nexerus, Nov 13, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  15. "The call for violence and discrimination of others is never acceptable."

    "If you're not directly inciting an immediate act of violence (or other such crime), the government shouldn't be able to stop you from expressing an idea."

    I believe you Miss the point I make. I am saying a public speaker or such should not be allowed to incite violence or mistreatment. A person should not be able to get up on a forum and say. "We should kill all these people" and have free reign to continue to do so. Here in Sweden, we have rules against such things, and we are very far removed from some Orwellian nightmare. FRA non withstanding, but they were pushed by record labels and other private interested to fight piracy. So your claims are the same fear mongering tactics about Orwellian and Surveilence Society that I see every other "anti oversight" advocate spew. I didn't say we should go out and censor every person with a politically "Incorrect" opinion. Im saying that hate speach should be treated serisuly. If someone repeatedly harass people with hate speach, he should be at the very list be noted for it. If a person, say a priest, gets up on his podium and start saying that gay people aren't real people, that we should drive them out into the sea. Then we should stop him from having a large forum to spread his hatred on if we can. Its about setting precedence. A goverment is supposed to reflect and further the countries virtues.

    Inciting violence and persecution is never acceptable. It should not be allowed a platform or a venue. There is nothing Orwellian about it. I am very much against most censorship as I stated previously. I do not believe we should ban everything outright, I do not believe we should outlaw everything that be considered offensive either. But I strongly believe we need to make sure we do not allow a platform on which racism and biggotry can grow. We need to fight it in every sense of the word.

    As for calling you a Nazi. I never did that, I made a joke about the connection between protecting the right to spouting racist rhetoric and your choice of avatar. I said you have a modified swastika as your avatar, which you do, with a red band around to boot as if it wasn't clear. I You don't want people to make such associations to your defense of hate speach, then I suggest you have choose another avatar. Otherwise you reap what you sow, and people like me will link your defense of peoples right to hate speech to your unfortunate choice of avatar.. So sorry If I do not share your sense of crass humor or disregard for history.
    #15 Hellis, Nov 13, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014
  16. @Hellis @The Nexerus

    Remember guys, Minibit said no slinging around names or passive-aggressive remarks. Keep it impersonal.

    I am a big believer in freedom of speech and an opponent of censorship. However, freedom of speech doesn't give anyone license to say what they want free of consequence. Being opposed to censorship doesn't mean that you should abandon any sense of judgment on what is appropriate to say or show to another person. It doesn't mean you should ignore someone's wishes and feelings on what they wish to be shown or told.

    You absolutely should be able to say whatever horrible garbage you want, but don't go up to someone you know it will piss off and give them an earful. Don't act surprised when people ostracize you for spewing horrible garbage. And if it causes them actual harm (i.e. bullying, harassment, verbal and psychological abuse) then you should damn well be willing to deal with legal consequences.

    It's very important, though, that no one be deprived of the right to discuss any subject, no matter how vile you think it is. There will always be someone who feels that what you think is important is vile, too.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. I love how "Nazi" has become the go-to word for shutting down conversation. Didn't realise people loved corporatised states so damn much.