8 ms·

> As for racist speech, I really truly believe that censoring does not ever serve its intended purpose. What is censoring for you? I don't see a single Wester

> As for racist speech, I really truly believe that censoring does not ever serve its intended purpose. What is censoring for you? I don't see a single Western democracy that is not "censoring" or restricting the rights of individuals to some extent. It's just to a different extent. E.g. the US has speed limits on highways, but Germany hasn't. You must not deny the holocaust in Germany, but you can do so in the US. The argument that there is no grey area seems flawed to me. Instead, can we, as a society, discuss productively where we draw the line?

NikolaNovak 4y ago
Yes, absolutely :) I agree with grayness, I just happen to draw my line fairly, for lack of better word, liberally - and specifically so that we Can, to your point, discuss ideas productively as a society - something that censorship explicitly and by definition prevents! I am a proponent of marketplace of ideas and open discussion. To your example, I do not see German laws making denial of holocaust as even remotely effective. I believe they are in fact counter productive - I've met people who use them to confirm the notion of "Jewish conspiracy". I do not agree with these people! But I'd rather have them spew their nonsense in the open, and be able to freely tell them they're wrong, unhindered by naive and ineffective at best attempts at censorship. (speed driving laws are not censorship in any way that I've seen the word defined. Not every law is censorship, not every action is speech/communication).
- Pyramus 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your reasoning - why would some negative effects of an intervention automatically invalidate the positive effects? If you don't think there are plenty of positive effects, feel free to speak to somebody from the German Jewish community and see how they think about it. Which is my point - in a democracy restrictions to the rights of individuals are there to protect the rights of others. This rationale is shared by many restrictions to individual rights, hence the speed limit example.
IncRnd 4y ago
> E.g. the US has speed limits on highways, but Germany hasn't. A speed limit is a censure not a censor by any means whatsoever. > "censoring" or restricting the rights of individuals to some extent. Censorship is not any restriction but restrictions on books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc.
- Pyramus 4y ago
  Agree with your definition of censorship. > A speed limit is a censure not a censor by any means whatsoever. My point is there is a reason every single Western democracy has restrictions to free speech. And these restriction come from the same rationale as a speed limit, say, that is to balance the rights of individuals with the rights of all other members of society.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    That is an excellent point. Thank you for the clarification.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

Yes, absolutely :) I agree with grayness, I just happen to draw my line fairly, for lack of better word, liberally - and specifically so that we Can, to your point, discuss ideas productively as a society - something that censorship explicitly and by definition prevents! I am a proponent of marketplace of ideas and open discussion. To your example, I do not see German laws making denial of holocaust as even remotely effective. I believe they are in fact counter productive - I've met people who use them to confirm the notion of "Jewish conspiracy". I do not agree with these people! But I'd rather have them spew their nonsense in the open, and be able to freely tell them they're wrong, unhindered by naive and ineffective at best attempts at censorship. (speed driving laws are not censorship in any way that I've seen the word defined. Not every law is censorship, not every action is speech/communication).

Pyramus 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning - why would some negative effects of an intervention automatically invalidate the positive effects? If you don't think there are plenty of positive effects, feel free to speak to somebody from the German Jewish community and see how they think about it. Which is my point - in a democracy restrictions to the rights of individuals are there to protect the rights of others. This rationale is shared by many restrictions to individual rights, hence the speed limit example.

IncRnd 4y ago

> E.g. the US has speed limits on highways, but Germany hasn't. A speed limit is a censure not a censor by any means whatsoever. > "censoring" or restricting the rights of individuals to some extent. Censorship is not any restriction but restrictions on books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc.

Pyramus 4y ago
Agree with your definition of censorship. > A speed limit is a censure not a censor by any means whatsoever. My point is there is a reason every single Western democracy has restrictions to free speech. And these restriction come from the same rationale as a speed limit, say, that is to balance the rights of individuals with the rights of all other members of society.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  That is an excellent point. Thank you for the clarification.