# Do you think that (internet) censorship of nonviolent speech is ever justified?



## Defiled (Apr 4, 2019)

Jawz said:


> Do you think that ISIS should be able to post their recruitment propaganda and recruit people online?


Yes. As long as they aren't forcing people to consume their content or join their cause, I don't think there should be any _laws _restricting them from posting online. Of course, the host websites and ISPs also have the right to remove what and whom they want, and we consumers have the right to stop using their services if we don't like that they allow these posts, or to avoid the content we don't like.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

No! Keep the internet _*FREE*_ even if that means _*chaos, CHAOS!
*_Heed the words of Edgar Friendly!


* *


----------



## stevieg306 (Feb 18, 2019)

Some UK ISPs are completely blocking torrent sites and google is bumping torrent search results way at the bottom or not showing them at all, you can still get to them using 'magnet' in the search


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Defiled said:


> Yes. As long as they aren't forcing people to consume their content or join their cause, I don't think there should be any _laws _restricting them from posting online. Of course, the host websites and ISPs also have the right to remove what and whom they want, and we consumers have the right to stop using their services if we don't like that they allow these posts, or to avoid the content we don't like.


How far would you take that free speech absolutism? Consider for a moment a mob boss, people sitting in the head of organized crime. They might very well haven't dirtied their hands for decades - or at all as far as any present day crime is concerned. All they do in practice is speech, telling others to commit violence. If free speech is absolute, are the leaders of organized crimes innocent because they physically haven't done anything wrong?

...And ofcourse, the same can be said about leaders of terrorist organizations. Osama Bin Laden wasn't pointing knives at pilots or crashing planes into buildings, his entire involvement in the acts was through speech, in practice the most aggressive thing he was doing at the time was wanking in a cave.


----------



## Defiled (Apr 4, 2019)

Tropes said:


> How far would you take that free speech absolutism? Consider for a moment a mob boss, people sitting in the head of organized crime. They might very well haven't dirtied their hands for decades - or at all as far as any present day crime is concerned. All they do in practice is speech, telling others to commit violence. If free speech is absolute, are the leaders of organized crimes innocent because they physically haven't done anything wrong?
> 
> ...And ofcourse, the same can be said about leaders of terrorist organizations. Osama Bin Laden wasn't pointing knives at pilots or crashing planes into buildings, his entire involvement in the acts was through speech, in practice the most aggressive thing he was doing at the time was wanking in a cave.


In the instance of a crime boss, or a government official for that matter, when they give orders, their speech is implicitly backed by violence - "you do what I tell you, or I'll infringe on your rights." I could sit in a bar and start saying to random passers by "hey, I want you to go beat up Joe Schmoe" but since my speech isn't implicitly backed by violence, no crime is being committed.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Defiled said:


> In the instance of a crime boss, or a government official for that matter, when they give orders, their speech is implicitly backed by violence - "you do what I tell you, or I'll infringe on your rights." I could sit in a bar and start saying to random passers by "hey, I want you to go beat up Joe Schmoe" but since my speech isn't implicitly backed by violence, no crime is being committed.


Not necessarily their own violence though - the threat is more likely to that of a bodyguard or a capo (officer)'s violence, but not the top leadership. And this is just an example, the same is true for terrorist groups, tyrants, etc. If you make it a rule that speech can not ever be acknowledged as a means of violence, you've effectively given the leadership of criminal organizations immunity.

Remove that rule, and now you have to contend with the grey area, a spectrum in which a clear and direct command of violence is in one extreme, while a vaguely hateful speech that might be encouraging of violence towards a person or a group is on the other. If we can agree that the leader of the Schmoes tells his people to kill the Joes is an act of violence, then why wouldn't it be when someone does it on some forum or a twitter account? Do we account each for their degree of power? Do we account for the cumulative power of a potentially angry mob? And where is the line between outright telling people to and kill vs implying it would be a good idea to do so or reinforcing a world view in which it would seem like a good idea?


----------



## Monadnock (May 27, 2017)

I voted "Only in certain cases", any nation that cares about the physical, spiritual, mental etc. health of its people has an automatic interest in cracking down on pornography, even if created or viewed consensually, and steering them instead towards outlets to develop a healthier sexuality, porn is a public health crisis these days. And I know that porn might not technically be "speech" so I'm stretching things a bit, but I wanted to break the "if consensual, then good" paradigm with my answer.


----------



## Defiled (Apr 4, 2019)

Tropes said:


> Not necessarily their own violence though - the threat is more likely to that of a bodyguard or a capo (officer)'s violence, but not the top leadership. And this is just an example, the same is true for terrorist groups, tyrants, etc. If you make it a rule that speech can not ever be acknowledged as a means of violence, you've effectively given the leadership of criminal organizations immunity.
> 
> Remove that rule, and now you have to contend with the grey area, a spectrum in which a clear and direct command of violence is in one extreme, while a vaguely hateful speech that might be encouraging of violence towards a person or a group is on the other. If we can agree that the leader of the Schmoes tells his people to kill the Joes is an act of violence, then why wouldn't it be when someone does it on some forum or a twitter account? Do we account each for their degree of power? Do we account for the cumulative power of a potentially angry mob? And where is the line between outright telling people to and kill vs implying it would be a good idea to do so or reinforcing a world view in which it would seem like a good idea?


Sorry about the late response, but I was reading a book recently that reminded me of this discussion. It inspired me to write a blog post that I think covers my take on this: https://authortomharper.com/2019/06/06/human-relations-and-accountability/


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

In principle I think the internet should remain a free platform as much as possible, but you've worded the question in such a way that a resounding "no" doesn't feel honest TBH, as a lot of places on the internet are privately owned spaces where IMO it would be silly to demand to be able to say anything without consequences; and those consequences are typically a ban or suspension of one's account.

I mean, people get banned from this website regularly despite not having committed violence, and I usually don't have a problem with those bans. Similarly, let's say I run a website about gardening as an example, and that website has a forum. Surely it would be in the website's best interest to regulate what people say on there, i.e. keep non-gardening talk to the off-topic section and even ban people if they systematically use my site as a platform for their propaganda. There are other places for them to voice their opinion, but not my stupid gardening site. The thing is, people who are adamant about their political beliefs tend to talk a lot, and talk very loudly, so a 100% censorship-free internet might soon be little more than a big soap box for ideologues, while some people really just want to read about fucking gardening without being dragged into some sort of culture war. So I voted the middle option, even though that has a lot to do with the absolutist way in which the question is phrased.

That being said, I do think that it's in our best interest to keep censorship to an absolute minimum, and possibly allow even "hate speech" to a certain extent, because I think suppressing certain ideas can have adverse effects.

For example: when it comes to alt-right type rhetoric, you have to consider the simultaneous existence of intersectional theory which tends to frame whiteness as something problematic. Needless to say, some people feel threatened by such ideas, and identitarian groups take advantage of that by affirming the idea that these people are under attack for being white. I think the danger then in banning alt-right figureheads from all sorts of popular media platforms for hate speech is that in silencing them, we actually confirm their statements that white identity is under attack... at least, this is definitely how it's being perceived. This forms a self-reinforcing cycle wherein, ironically, fighting the alt-right makes them stronger because it turns them into martyrs, heroes who dare to speak up against the "anti-white" status quo. This is IMO not the right way to approach the issue.


----------



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

Sure. If the speech is misleading a customer, slandering, bribing/ blackmailing, discriminating or continuously harassing someone then people should be able to take some action against this. No one is above the law just because they did the wrongdoing on the internet.

Absolute free speech is nonsensical and irresponsible like a number of libertarian ideals. It's not in anyone's best interest in the long run.


----------

