Censorship: Okay if it is the good guys who are doing it?

[3.14158675309]

Or is there just something fundamentally wrong with it?

To my mind, the proverbial slope is slippery, indeed. And soon we will experience what Pogo so eloquently observed: "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

What say you, Lounge?

[Pierre.Suave]

1. Oh oh

what happened? Were some threads deleted/locked?

[3.14158675309]

2. This is simply a discussion. Check the baggage at the door, please.

[MrCoffee]

3. Fundamentally wrong

Of course, I also think the US should have bombed RTLM in 1994, so what do I know?

[3.14158675309]

11. RTLM was indeed evil, but bombing would be a quick and dirty answer

True concern involves more extensive measures; namely education of the people.

Knowledge is power. Power to the people!

[keroro gunsou]

21. rtlm

ok what's that?

[HopeHoops]

4. I just alerted this thread.

Too liberal even for DU.








:sarcasm:

[3.14158675309]

6. Point taken.

I disturbs me when I feel like the freedom of expression is unwelcome on a progressive board.

[SacredCow]

5. Fundamentally wrong is my vote....

:popcorn:

[3.14158675309]

7. I concur.

Further, I believe that the damage of the aftereffects of censorship will eventually prove to be greater than if it hadn't been initially enacted. It is a kind of mind-control.

[SacredCow]

12. Your first point is akin to lying to your parents....

Suppose you dent Dad's car one night, and you "censor" the information by telling him that it happened in a parking lot, and you weren't there. Days later, the story unravels and he finds out that you, in fact, hit a fire hydrant while doing something stupid. Now, all of a sudden, you're in deeper shit that you would have been to begin with. Whatsmore, your credibility is shot to hell.

Not that I have any kind of personal experience.... :hide:

[3.14158675309]

14. You made me smile!

:hug: :hi:

[SacredCow]

20. Glad to help...

:hi:

[TZ]

8. I'm generally opposed to censorship but

I do think there are some cases where its justified...The old "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" kind of thing..The thing that aggravates me the most is people posting stuff that is factually/scientifically incorrect about medical issues and urging people to avoid doctors to get miracle cure A...In other words..someone posting that chemo never works and that someone with cancer should take sugar pill xyz and they will be safe and healthy. That could lead directly to someone dying. Posts like that, that could potentially do harm should be not just locked..but deleted IMHO.

[BeachBaby]

9. I was an admin for a Vietnam vets board for several years.

Slippery slope, indeed. My fellow admins and mods were in full agreement with me, in that we wanted to allow our vets full rights to express themselves in whatever way they needed to do that. Most of them suffered from PTSD - and because of that, they re-live their tours, over and over, in their minds. Our board was their outlet, and so we gave them as much leeway as possible.

On occasion, things got out of hand. We would have vets who backed the Vietnam war, and our purpose there - but there were far more vets who were against the war from the beginning. These threads most often turned into flamewars - and I couldn't begin to count how many "meetings" I had with other mods and admins to decide on how to handle editing, locking and deleting.

In the 7 years that I mod/admin'd, I only deleted one thread. It was done after much deliberation between the mods and admins. None of us wanted to do it - but it got so out of hand that we feared that the words on screen would be hugely detrimental to our vets suffering the mental and emotional after-effects of the war. We didn't want to censor their thoughts - but after much thought, we felt it was in the best interests of our vets.

Censorship on the internet should be an absolutely last resort. YMMV.

[3.14158675309]

17. Good point, BB. It is always helpful to have personal experience when considering issues.

And your point about censorship being an absolute last resort is absolutely SPOT ON.

And BTW, kudos to you for all of the work you have done on behalf of our nation's veterans-- God, you are awesome! :pals:

[Deep13]

10. Always wrong on the large scale.

Still, non-governmental exclusion of arguments everyone in the group has rejected is sometimes necessary. If a message board is set up and devoted to discussing new developments in evolutionary science, there is nothing wrong with the owner of the message board excluding creationists. I post on cloudynights.com, an amatuer astronomy message board sometimes. Posts about religion or politics are routinely deleted. If someone is homophobic because of cultural or religious bigoty, I don't think the person should be gagged, but I also don't think the place to express that prejudice is at a soldier's funeral. Just as I have a right to turn off Fox Noiz, individuals have a right to exclude hostile points of view in their own groups.

[Heidi]

18. :thumbsup:

I think a lot of people fail to realize that when joining online communities, they often waive their freedom of expression upon registration. Then, months or years later, when a moderator, guide or Admin deletes a disruptive post or locks a disruptive thread, folks forget that months or years ago, tforget hey clicked "Agree" when presented with the rules/TOS at registration.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. +1

:thumbsup:

[guitar man]

13. fundamentally wrong

I mean, as much as I would like to see the likes of Savage, Hannity, Coulter et al shut up, I wouldn't advocate the govt pulling the plug on them. One of the real advantages of free speech is that it allows the idiots to expose who they really are. I'd like to think that a progressive society can tolerate those who rail against it and and that eventually they will be booed off the stage of public opinion and driven from the marketplace.

[3.14158675309]

16. Brilliantly worded!

And I would add that that is why an educated population is so critical, so that they are able to make informed decisions.

[guitar man]

19. exactly

Information is power.

I think the reason the aforementioned idiots and their ilk are so vitriolic is because no matter what they do, they eventually lose. Progress will happen whether they like it or not. All they can do is attempt to slow down the inevitable. Progress is always too fast for them and too slow for us, sometimes maddeningly so. It may ebb and flow, rock back and forth a bit, but eventually we always move forward.

As the bitter old fucks that make up the heart of their movement continue to die off, they will lose strength and be exceedingly forced to the margins. Sure, they always seem to come up with a crop of "young republicans" somehow, but I think their numbers are going to eventually shrink as they figure out they aren't really the "cool kids". :P

[SKKY]

15. Fundamentally wrong. Period.

[JitterbugPerfume]

22. there are rules

set by the owner , namely Skinner. Deal with it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. +1

:thumbsup:

[petronius]

23. In the context of government censorship and secrecy, I will always prefer to err on the side

of freedom and openness. In the private arena, however, I think the word 'censorship' is tossed about too loosely - it is not censorship, for example, for a private entity to to place limits on the messages and activities taking place in/on that entity's space...

[Dr. Strange]

24. Are we talking government censorship?

Or censorship by private individuals?

[Lucian]

25. It's fundamentally wrong.

[Critters2]

28. No. Only torture works that way.

Just in case: :sarcasm: