Censorship around the world

[dimreepr]

Ok now that you've moved the focus to something that can now be reasonably discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

The Uk's struggle to integrate different cultural influences has meant such laws as "Racial and religious hatred act 2006" completely unnecessary and an example of kneejerk legislation.

 

"The terrorism act 2000/2006" is an example of the government using fear to impose (unreasonable) controls at the behest of the public.

 

The above laws could be seen as self imposed, driven largely by fear and a media in constant search of the sensational, in order to sell itself to the public.

 

 

It is you all who scare me.

 

 

Fear is a large part of what is deemed necessary to censor, maybe you should stop worrying.

Edited August 18, 2012 by dimreepr

[Klaynos]

If you wanted to talk about censorship in general why approach it from the direction you did? It seems a somewhat counter-productive approach. This seems to be common in your posts, I agree with some of your points about the requirement to teach young people history, but then you make a comment about "evil Europe that made people carry ID" which strikes me as damaging your argument and being rather naive of some of the countries situations in Europe during WWII. On a related note, I'd propose you read some of the occupation stories from the channel islands, I think you'd find them very interesting.

 

I think this thread is evidence for how trying to start a general discussion is such a way is just going to be counter-productive to your argument and the discussion in general.

 

Ok now that you’ve moved the focus to something that can now be reasonably discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

The Uk’s struggle to integrate different cultural influences has meant such laws as “Racial and religious hatred act 2006” completely unnecessary and an example kneejerk legislation.

 

“The terrorism act 2000/2006” is an example of the government using fear to impose (unreasonable) controls at the behest of the public.

 

The above laws could be seen as self imposed, driven largely by fear and a media in constant search of the sensational, in order to sell itself to the public.

 

 

Fear is a large part of what is deemed necessary to censor, maybe you should stop worrying.

 

A very interesting topic indeed. The history of ID cards in the UK and the recent attempts to introduce them is a very interesting tale, there's a good yes, minister episode on it.

[Athena]

It really is surprising how many people confuse "freedom of speech" with "I demand that you publish what I want."

 

Look. Freedom of speech means that you do indeed have the right to write or say what you want. But you do not have the right to force Bignose's publishing press to print it for you. Nor do you have the right to force a privately owned forum -- a form of publishing -- to publish your words. Go get your own forum/server/website and run it how you want and publish however you want.

 

You agreed to follow rules when you petitioned to become a member here. And you agreed to follow the enforcement of those rules as chosen by the mods.

 

I really believe that they must be doing something right, because the forum has a pretty good active user list. Quite simply, if they were doing things so wrong, people would not bother visiting and posting here.

 

That is an excellent argument. Now is there any reason be concerned about having a culture that argues in favor of censorship instead of in favor of freedom of speech? As I said to Moontanman, this is a matter of culture, and as I said to Iggy, it is not the moderates who scare me but everyone else.

 

Agreed the forum has a good user list, but sometimes I get really nervous about this being an exclusive club that prevents awareness of knowledge vital to humanity. Discussions of a spiritual and moral nature have not gone so well, and this boils down to my concern about our liberty and what is happening to it. Discussion of traditional values go as badly as discussions of God which are almost impossible, because of the very negative reaction to the word "God". We went from believing duty is a central element of our self worth, to no discussion of duty, and this is really frightening to me, because I think adults have a sense of duty, and children do not and are dependent. We have gone from virtue being synonomous with strength, to loosing a concept of virtues. Like I am talking about a culture that is forgotten, and how doing so has been a very unpleasant experience. I might as well be from a foreign country that has values different from western culture. I often feel like public enemy number 1 in these discussions. If it were not knowledge of Socrates and others who dared to stand alone against the angry mob, I would not be able to continue. Like the Ku Klux Clan was very popular but isn't the model of social ideals I want to follow. There is something more important than being popular, and I worry that our culture is forgetting that.

 

Ok now that you've moved the focus to something that can now be reasonably discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

The Uk's struggle to integrate different cultural influences has meant such laws as "Racial and religious hatred act 2006" completely unnecessary and an example of kneejerk legislation.

 

"The terrorism act 2000/2006" is an example of the government using fear to impose (unreasonable) controls at the behest of the public.

 

The above laws could be seen as self imposed, driven largely by fear and a media in constant search of the sensational, in order to sell itself to the public.

 

 

Fear is a large part of what is deemed necessary to censor, maybe you should stop worrying.

 

I am out of time, but yes! you have moved this discussion to the level I am interested it. What you have said goes with "only highly moral people can have liberty". I argue the religion thing because I believe we must consider God, as an abstract, and must pull away from the popular religious movement in the US of believing we can know God or define God, because this has everything to do with how we understand morality, which has everything to do with liberty. We can leave our children alone with when we can trust they understand the rules and have accepted them as good and necessary, but we can't leave our children along when they don't. The king or government is father to the people, when liberal education doesn't internalize this authority. We can teach good moral judgment, or have authority over the people. Education for technology is not teaching for good moral judgment, and we are falling back on trying to control people with laws and police force, and higher level discussions are very difficult to have. This destroys liberty and really makes a mess of things. Got to run.... thanks for raising the level of discussion.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We're in a bit of a quandary here. If this thread is now discussing censorship in general, and not accusations aimed at SFN staff, the new posts need to be moved to Politics instead of Suggestions, Comments and Support. Most of the currently available staff is involved in the thread, however, and we normally don't like to make moderation decisions if we're involved.

Does anyone have a problem with me splitting posts #32-34 off into their own thread in Politics, even though I'm involved in the current thread?

!

Moderator Note

OK, new topic split off, so if you still want to discuss censorship by the SFN Staff, please do so in the original thread.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Phi for All
posts split

[swansont]

Agreed the forum has a good user list, but sometimes I get really nervous about this being an exclusive club that prevents awareness of knowledge vital to humanity.

How could that possibly happen at the level of an internet forum? How could a single site possibly prevent a person from posting the same information elsewhere?

[Athena]

How could that possibly happen at the level of an internet forum? How could a single site possibly prevent a person from posting the same information elsewhere?

 

You have asked a very interesting question and I will fall back on what I say about culture. There was a time when the church controlled what people talk about. That is switching to a materialistic dogma, that prevents discussion of spiritual matters and morality and values.

 

I gave perhaps a better reply to your question in the original thread. Again it is about culture. Liberal education manifest a very different culture, and I argue the subjects of God and liberty, and freedom of speech and matters of justice so persistently, because I have lived long enough, and known enough people who are now dead, to know how much education for technology has change our culture. When I use the word NAZI I am speaking of that change and I am saying that change comes through public education. Repeatedly I have said, the science forums are not that much different. People in all the forums make the same arguments that made here, and lack the same information that is lacking here, because education was changed, and the past culture is not being transmitted, and this changes the meaning of words and values. Instead of it just being the poor folk in the back woods, without the education to understanding the meanings of words, and philosophical reasoning of democracy, it is everyone. We have become technological smart and lost our wisdom.

 

As censorship at the forum level, reflects the culture, and the culture seems to be moving to in the direction of a police state, this can be turned around by the internet. I would not be spending my time this way if I didn't believe it is possible to use the Internet to transition to the New Age, which must be a completely different consciousness. This transition is activated by democracy, and education for the Military Industrial Complex is the enemy of it, because it makes people dependent on authority, instead of internalizing authority, and it makes people intolerant, instead of tolerant. This what happened to Germany when the Prussians turned it into a military machine, so has the US been turned into a military machine. Do you think the forefathers of the US would be making the same arguments for the moderators control of the forums? Patrick Henry would be screaming give me liberty or give me death. Those who attacked my character are not the mods, but the peasants under their authority and feeling a need to defend it. I find this psychologically curious, and wonder to what degree this strange defensiveness of the peasants, explains history? But when this turns around, it will be huge! The Occupy movement will look small, compared to the potential of changed consciousness that is possible because of the Internet, as long as moderators do not prevent that from happening, by preventing the use of the words such as "God" and "NAZI". Not in this single forum, but all of them! I said before, this forum is better than many, and that is why I am here and not there. There is more hope of the necessary change of consciousness, in this forum, and once the change takes root, it will spread. When education for technology is understood as education for a military machine, and liberal education is education for liberty, we have hope of making all other necessary changes. But this isn't going to happen if people remain defensive and see the problem as my bad character, rather than what happened to Germany.

 

I want keep this on a higher level. It has been said foreigners entering with their customs, is causing problems, and out of fear, censorship is being used as a means of social control. Liberal education uses education for a culture, instead of trying to police people. The conflict between religious groups is really bad, and I think especially the people of Europe are aware of these religious conflicts threaten civil wars and wars between nations! Before the human population was so large, we could avoid each other and all the conflicts we are having today. Religion didn't exactly bring peace to earth, unless extermination is a legitimate way to bring peace to earth. Democracy is the path to peace, and especially Christianity and Islam have a problem with democracy. I think Judaism does okay with democracy, until they have their own land, and then the Zionist Jews don't do well at all, because Zionism is not about democracy. Zionism is about having a home for Jews. Now all these people have to live together, and as our populations increase, this is like living a pressure cooker. Terrorism is a big fear for everyone. Check out the activities of the CIA if we think the US is innocent of terrorism. I am loosing my point- we can not just advance technology and ignore the importance of culture. Democracy is about discovering truth and rule by reason. It is a very intellectual matter.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Athena

[Bignose]

As censorship at the forum level, reflects the culture, and the culture seems to be moving to in the direction of a police state, this can be turned around by the internet.

 

The foil to this is: you also have the freedom to visit most any website on the Internet you want, and the freedom to set up most any website you want.

 

Do you also think that CNN.com should post articles from you as headliners? Do you also think microsoft.com should post articles ridiculing their software? How about forcing NYYankees.com to praise the merits of the Boston Red Sox players?

 

If you said 'no' to the above (and I think most reasonable people would say 'no'), why should scienceforums.net be any different?

 

The owner of the site can do with it what he wants. Period. End of story.

 

If he wanted to delete every single post, he can! It is his site.

 

If he wanted the mods to ban anyone who makes a post using the letter 'e', he can! It is his site.

 

If he wants to take each an every one of your posts and turn them into baby talk, he can! It is his site.

 

If you fear these possibilities, and your quote above is just one line of many that indicate you do, then you best start your own website and run it how you want to.

 

If the government comes in, and starts deleting posts & turning off sites, then you have a point. But the government doesn't do this at scienceforums.net. The owner has his freedom of speech protected -- he can use his domain, his server, his software to publish whatever he wants.

 

At this time, the owner lets complete strangers post things on his website. He asks the mods to enforce rules -- again rules EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US agreed to follow in order to ask permission to post things on this website. The mods are human, and certainly imperfect, but they enforce the rules as best they can. This could change at any time the owner wants to, however.

 

I hate to keep harping on this, but if you don't care for how the rules are enforced, start your own site and enforce whatever rules you want however you want to. It really is that simple.

 

Otherwise, the price to pay to use this forum and its resources completely 100% free to you, is to accept the rules and the way they are enforced.

 

In other words, this forum does not fall under the auspices of freedom of speech, and it never has. The speech allowed on this forum is 100% determined by the site owner and those he gives the power to do that determining. You are asking for something that has never ever existed. Again, freedom of speech is the right to say and print a great deal of whatever you want. But, it does not allow you to force any other entity to publish or reproduce your sayings and writings for you. It never, ever has.

 

Now, if the government does start coming into scienceforums.net and remove or change posts against the wishes of the site owner -- then you've got something to talk about here. My understanding is that the Chinese government does this: http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158448847/chinas-internet-police-targets-collective-action But I don't know of any of this going on in the U.S. (I cannot speak for the U.K. or other countries.)

 

But otherwise, I really think that you're confusing the issue of censorship at a government level with ownership and moderation of private resources that are available for public viewing. Freedom of speech says that the owner(s) of scienceforums.net can publish darn near whatever they want -- it DOES NOT mean that ANYONE has to be able to publishing anything THEY want on that site. The owner of the site gets to wholly and completely determine what he wants to publish on that site.

 

Edited for spelling

Edited August 20, 2012 by Bignose

[iNow]

How about forcing NYYankees.com to praise the merits of the Boston Red Sox players?

I love this one, and would quite enjoy seeing that.

You might, however, start WWIII by doing so.

 

 

 

Athena - In hopes of helping you gain some perspective, this is how most of us perceive you at this point:

 

 

[swansont]

The thing is, that governments slowly moving the borders is an issue, and few notice the change. But freedom of speech on private property has not been the case in our democracy, not even in the "good old days"

[zapatos]

Athena - In hopes of helping you gain some perspective, this is how most of us perceive you at this point:

Hee hee. Reminded me of the MP boys.

 

[Athena]

The foil to this is: you also have the freedom to visit most any website on the Internet you want, and the freedom to set up most any website you want.

 

Do you also think that CNN.com should post articles from you as headliners? Do you also think microsoft.com should post articles ridiculing their software? How about forcing NYYankees.com to praise the merits of the Boston Red Sox players?

 

If you said 'no' to the above (and I think most reasonable people would say 'no'), why should scienceforums.net be any different?

 

The owner of the site can do with it what he wants. Period. End of story.

 

If he wanted to delete every single post, he can! It is his site.

 

If he wanted the mods to ban anyone who makes a post using the letter 'e', he can! It is his site.

 

If he wants to take each an every one of your posts and turn them into baby talk, he can! It is his site.

 

If you fear these possibilities, and your quote above is just one line of many that indicate you do, then you best start your own website and run it how you want to.

 

If the government comes in, and starts deleting posts & turning off sites, then you have a point. But the government doesn't do this at scienceforums.net. The owner has his freedom of speech protected -- he can use his domain, his server, his software to publish whatever he wants.

 

At this time, the owner lets complete strangers post things on his website. He asks the mods to enforce rules -- again rules EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US agreed to follow in order to ask permission to post things on this website. The mods are human, and certainly imperfect, but they enforce the rules as best they can. This could change at any time the owner wants to, however.

 

I hate to keep harping on this, but if you don't care for how the rules are enforced, start your own site and enforce whatever rules you want however you want to. It really is that simple.

 

Otherwise, the price to pay to use this forum and its resources completely 100% free to you, is to accept the rules and the way they are enforced.

 

In other words, this forum does not fall under the auspices of freedom of speech, and it never has. The speech allowed on this forum is 100% determined by the site owner and those he gives the power to do that determining. You are asking for something that has never ever existed. Again, freedom of speech is the right to say and print a great deal of whatever you want. But, it does not allow you to force any other entity to publish or reproduce your sayings and writings for you. It never, ever has.

 

Now, if the government does start coming into scienceforums.net and remove or change posts against the wishes of the site owner -- then you've got something to talk about here. My understanding is that the Chinese government does this: http://www.npr.org/2...llective-action But I don't know of any of this going on in the U.S. (I cannot speak for the U.K. or other countries.)

 

But otherwise, I really think that you're confusing the issue of censorship at a government level with ownership and moderation of private resources that are available for public viewing. Freedom of speech says that the owner(s) of scienceforums.net can publish darn near whatever they want -- it DOES NOT mean that ANYONE has to be able to publishing anything THEY want on that site. The owner of the site gets to wholly and completely determine what he wants to publish on that site.

 

Edited for spelling

 

I just posted in the science education forum, the best education technology ever. I am sooo excited! My concern is about culture and trying to do something about that is this forum may be a total waste of my time. A new door has been opened and I am sure I should go through it.

 

Hee hee. Reminded me of the MP boys.

 

 

I am sure you mean well.

 

The thing is, that governments slowly moving the borders is an issue, and few notice the change. But freedom of speech on private property has not been the case in our democracy, not even in the "good old days"

 

Yes, I think I am wasting my time here.

[zapatos]

I just posted in the science education forum, the best education technology ever. I am sooo excited! My concern is about culture and trying to do something about that is this forum may be a total waste of my time. A new door has been opened and I am sure I should go through it.

 

Yes, I think I am wasting my time here.

I would have to concur. In hindsight, choosing a science site as ground zero for your plan to impact culture may have been a poor choice. In addition, railing against teaching science and technology to people who have dedicated much of their lives to learning science and technology may also have been overestimating your powers of persuasion.

[Iggy]

Yes, I think I am wasting my time here.

Even if your time wasn't completely wasted, you are now over 500 posts almost all of which are boilerplate reproductions of the same idea. It has been whittled down into a bullet point synopsis,

 

Again it is about culture. Liberal education manifest a very different culture, and I argue the subjects of God and liberty, and freedom of speech and matters of justice so persistently, because I have lived long enough, and known enough people who are now dead, to know how much education for technology has change our culture. When I use the word NAZI I am speaking of that change and I am saying that change comes through public education.

 

You've shown that you can relate liberal education, God, technology, and Nazis to censorship and many other topics, but continuing to press more topics into the same boiler plate won't make your point any more comprehensively. So... I mean as constructively as possible... it has to be a waste of time here and now, or at the very least would be a better use of time elsewhere.