Society/Culture Should censorship exist?

[CM86]

With the latest revelations saying that censoring right wing extremists is what causes right wing extremism. Should we remove all censorship to alleviate extremism?

A few threads on this board have been explaining that PC has stifled discussion, meaning that views are silenced and so can't be corrected.
Swept into the underbelly they get worse. 'If these views were allowed to be talked about openly, they would decrease'.

Is this true for everything?

Should we allow Bilal Philips into Australia? He was banned in 2007.

He has a lot of non-PC views, of which he insists he has been taken out of context etc. Should we let him have more of a voice in Australia?
It was claimed that one of his books incited "xenophobia and violence" and was racist.

Philips "vehemently" defended his book, denied it condoned racism, noting that millions of copies had been published in Muslim communities around the world, and stated that any action against the book could "constitute an attack on Islam itself.​

Should we give him more of a voice?
Who else should we give more of a voice, to reduce their support?
If he had a daily spot in The Age, would it reduce his support?

One of his books have been banned from UK prisons.

If we need to allow the voices of white supremacists to be heard, in order to reduce white supremacy. Shouldn't we also allow the voices of Islamic supremacists for the same reasons?

I'm against it. For the same reasons I'm against the bigot-pr0n posted in some of these threads on BigFooty.
Do we have a point where we draw the line on what should be censored? Or do we need to remove censorship all together?

 

[Exe Gesis]

im a roaring anti-censorship person.

 

[ShanDog]

Boil it down and the only reason for governments to censor what the public can see or hear is control.

I don't like that.

But, not all forms of censorship are about control of ideas or narratives, and should be OK. For instance, there are different ratings on media such as movies. We can argue whether they are correct or not, but the principle behind them is not to stop people from engaging with something, but to protect children from seeing harmful material that they aren't developmentally prepared for.

That's OK with me.

It's a tricky subject in the same way free speech is. Bad ideas don't go away because they become illegal, particularly in the Internet age. Social standards are important, but are they so important that the government should set them and police them? Probably not. But maybe.

 

[its free real estate]

Censor it all.

 

[Fat Yak]

Milo Yiannopoulos banned from entering Australia following Christchurch shooting comments
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-16/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-entering-australia/10908854

• @RichAFerguson
  
  
• 12:00AM MARCH 1, 2019

An Egyptian sheik touring Australian mosques has mocked the September 11, 2001, and Charlie Hebdo terror attacks as “comedy films” and repeatedly denounced Jews and Christians in social media posts and sermons.
Sheik Omar Abdel Kafi — who is in Australia on a week-long speaking tour — told supporters in 2015 that Muslims were not involved in attacks on French magazine Charlie Hebdo and the World Trade Centre in New York.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...k/news-story/bb2a1c8de7af3f04ab3e41adf84c49bb

 

[Chief]

Should that guy be censored?

With the Internet, is it even possible to censor someone?

 

[PurpleEyes]

There's a good reason for censorship, it's

 

[Fade to Gray]

There has to be censorship at some level. Can't have child pr0n, snuff films etc. Anyone who wants unlimited censorship with no restrictions is insane. It comes down to a question of how much censorship you want. People will draw the line somewhere. Take the Christchurch incident - it's a video of a maniac committing mass murder. I have no desire to see it and don't really understand why someone would want to watch it. Happy to see it banned.

 

[EasternTiger]

If we are going to be consistent, we should let him in, and let him say whatever he likes.

Because lets face it 'Kill the infidel, and don't let your women drive' as a message has had such a positive influence on the lives of the Australian Muslim community.

 

[RupieDupie]

IMO

People at certain levels in society (such as ministers, senators, religious leaders, scientists, teachers) and in certain organisations (such as the government, media, religious institutions, research centres, schools / universities) have a responsibility, and they should be censored. For example, they should tell the truth. Furthermore, they should not be allowed to abuse their position of power to incite fear and hatred, or to trick / fool people so they can make heaps of munny etc etc etc etc And if they break these rules they should be held to account.

Just like in the Spiderman movie - "With great power comes great responsibility"

Then the rest of us can indeed be agents, knowing what the truth is and making decisions based on this knowledge - having choice. And therefore, also being held accountable for our actions. Thus, there will be no need to censor the rest of us normal people, and if individuals do wrong by their freedom, then the individual is to blame. Freedom of speech is an ideology designed for the little guy, not the people in power.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I'm not sure denying someone a visa is really censorship. Their ability to speak isn't impinged. With the internet their ability to speak to the people in the country isn't even really impaired, just their ability to monetize it.

 

[EasternTiger]

IMO

People at certain levels in society (such as ministers, senators, religious leaders, scientists, teachers) and in certain organisations (such as the government, media, religious institutions, research centres, schools / universities) have a responsibility, and they should be censored. For example, they should tell the truth.

Pfft as if that will ever happen.

I'm not even sure I'd be comfortable with politicians telling me the truth.

"Hello Australia. We are all bums who have pissed your money down the drain. And after we are done fiddlin them, we are also hocking your kids future to pay for it."

Stick with the mushroom policy used by past Labor governments:

Feed'em s**t and keep'em in the dark.

 

[RupieDupie]

Pfft as if that will ever happen.

I'm not even sure I'd be comfortable with politicians telling me the truth.

"Hello Australia. We are all bums who have pissed your money down the drain. And after we are done fiddlin them, we are also hocking your kids future to pay for it."

Stick with the mushroom policy used by past Labor governments:

Feed'em s**t and keep'em in the dark.

I agree, a Royal Commission into the corrupt heart of The Australian Government will reveal a truth that would make every sane Australian vomit in absolute disgust, and we will all be dry-wretching for years to come. But the problem is, it is not being kept in the dark. It is leaking and starting to spew s**t all over the place.

 

[EasternTiger]

I agree, a Royal Commission into the corrupt heart of The Australian Government will reveal a truth that would make every sane Australian vomit in absolute disgust, and we will all be dry-wretching for years to come. But the problem is, it is not being kept in the dark. It is leaking and starting to spew s**t all over the place.

It is starting to leak because of free speech warriors like snake baker and others.

You only see the true nature of a man when he feels comfortable enough to let you see it. They will often shoot themselves in the foot if you give them enough rope see Fraser Anning.

Censorship sends people underground, and often leads them and their fans to believe their edgy drivel is far more important than it really is.

For something to rot, it needs exposure to oxygen.

'Give them oxygen, so they may rot'

EDIT: Don't any of you bastards try and knock that line orf. There may be a tshirt deal in the works.

 

[WA ROO]

Censor it all.

Correct
If I don't like no one else should able to say it or see it

Starting with K Pop

 

[yebiga]

Censorship in a democracy is asking for it to fail. Democracy is prone to stupidity as it is - censorship guarantees it.

You can have restrictions based on public indecency but for adults opinion of every variety must be freely available to a democracy’s citizens.

Free exchange of ideas however distasteful Is the very foundation of democracy

Look at NAZIs Germany the USSR the first thing they do is censorship

I’m amazed this is debated

It is just idiotic that it is

 

[RupieDupie]

It is starting to leak because of free speech warriors like snake baker and others.

You only see the true nature of a man when he feels comfortable enough to let you see it. They will often shoot themselves in the foot if you give them enough rope see Fraser Anning.

Censorship sends people underground, and often leads them and their fans to believe their edgy drivel is far more important than it really is.

For something to rot, it needs exposure to oxygen.

'Give them oxygen, so they may rot'

EDIT: Don't any of you bastards try and knock that line orf. There may be a tshirt deal in the works.

Anning hasn't shot himself in the foot, he rightly stated something along the lines of, "Censure me...? What is he going to do? Slap me around with his silk handkerchief?"

That's the issue, there is no accountability or responsibility at the top, and these people should be censored (not us). And as part of criminal law. So if people like Anning do talk a bit of shite at the expense of other people, Morrison can do more to him than his planned kinky sex game with a handkerchief.

 

[RupieDupie]

Censorship in a democracy is asking for it to fail. Democracy is prone to stupidity as it is - censorship guarantees it.

You can have restrictions based on public indecency but for adults opinion of every variety must be freely available to a democracy’s citizens.

Free exchange of ideas however distasteful Is the very foundation of democracy

Look at NAZIs Germany the USSR the first thing they do is censorship

I’m amazed this is debated

It is just idiotic that it is

But I don't think our media conglomerate will claim they are lying, stating fighting words etc, neither will politicians.

It works in their favour if they are perceived to tell the truth (not up to any shenanigans), and that is what they are claiming they are doing. So why not just legitimise it? No one will lose from this as they claim they are already doing so. Through the law... criminal law.

What will be a fair punishment for a misdemeanour?

https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/ato-whistleblower-faces-six-life-sentences-roughly-the-same-as-ivan-milat

This happened in the past with the "sport" formerly known as WWF but is now known as "sports entertainment", WWE. Back in the old days people had suspicions that these wrestlers were not fair dinkumly wrassling each other... Surprise! They weren't. They admitted that they were faking it, because if they did not WWF/E would have had to a pay a massive sports tax. So they decided to admit the sport was fake.

Fast forward to the Year of our Lord 2019 and there are suspicions that our "news" media is not being honest with us. If they have a criminal code where they can be convicted and imprisoned for being a charlatan, NewsCorp will either 1) overnight turn into "News Entertainment" or 2) start telling the truth

 

[Bunkdar]

The government are taking the NZ event 2 be on the front foot when it come 2 censoring internet companies
but do nothing effective about how they pay zero tax
giv me a fekin break 0^o

 

[Demosthenes]

Wow, been a while since I've seen a straw man this big.

There is a difference between censorship and political correctness. Censorship implies government or legal control whereas political correctness implies more of a cultural unacceptance. Aside from the small cadre of political diehards who like to argue over things like s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, I don't think the majority of Australia gives much thought to or has much interest in either expanding or contracting censorship. We are already by any measure a pretty open society, and generally we all like it that way.

I don't like the term 'political correctness', but I do think we have a fundamental problem in western society whereby the discussion of certain issues is often cast as a matter of morality first and practicality second. We cannot expect open and genuine mainstream discussion when we are so quick to cast a stigma on those who express dissenting views.

To take one example - if you cast questioning multiculturalism and immigration as racist, the only people who will be comfortable openly expressing those things are people who don't care about being seen as racists (the Cory Bernardis, the Fraser Annings, and anyone else who cares more about mobilising a minority than appealing to the majority). Allowing the fringe to co-opt an entire side of a divisive issue only provides undeserved help to their wider agenda.

So in answer to the question in the OP, my response is that we need to get better culturally at recognising and fostering non-judgemental discussion of those views that are widely held. Consider it axiomatic that we are overwhelmingly a society of good people with good intentions, and thus dispense with attaching negative intentions to people who hold an opinion just because you personally consider it unpalatable. That is, "if a lot of people think like this, then there must be reasons worth considering". Withholding judgement allows for constructive and open discussion. Constructive and open discussion leads to better pinpointing of the actual problem, and subsequently (hopefully) solutions.

The idea that this means every view (no matter how marginal) deserves oxygen is nonsensical.

 

[its free real estate]

It's here now:



I wonder what else will end up blocked by the Great Firewall of Australia.

 

[Maggie5]

It's here now:



I wonder what else will end up blocked by the Great Firewall of Australia.

Websites blocked but twitter accounts still active of most.

 

[its free real estate]

Websites blocked but twitter accounts still active of most.

Someone doesn't understand the internet.

 

[Socrates2]

It's here now:



I wonder what else will end up blocked by the Great Firewall of Australia.

It's sensible move to stop keyboard cowards from spreading hate anonymously. There's thousands of other forums you can use ,so it's not a freedom of speech issue.These particular sights are a hotbed of hate ,mistruths and propaganda.

 

[Maggie5]

Someone doesn't understand the internet.

Are you incapable of 'playing nice'?

The tweet was misleading.

Twitter is a very useful tool of getting information out very quickly, the websites more in depth.