Censorship?

[Kantarii]

Deleted

 

[sr71plt]

That depends on what you are calling censorship. If you're saying that Literotica shouldn't deny the posting of anything (which is what some mean when they raise it here), no, I'm not with you. This is a private business. They have every right to only carry the products they want to carry.

Should you be able to print out what you want to say in any way at your own cost and distribute it yourself--yes, I'm with you there. When you start demanding that someone else allow it to run--the Internet, for instance, or a publisher a distributor other than yourself, no, you are then impinging on their rights to handle their own choices of product.

And that's not censorship. Censorship is something the government does, using governmental authorities. And when you get into that, the discussion really belongs on the political forum.

But should you be permitted to read anything you want that you can get your hands on? Sure. No one has an obligation to give it to you, though.

 

[jehoram]

That depends on what you are calling censorship. If you're saying that Literotica shouldn't deny the posting of anything (which is what some mean when they raise it here), no, I'm not with you. This is a private business. They have every right to only carry the products they want to carry.

Should you be able to print out what you want to say in any way at your own cost and distribute it yourself--yes, I'm with you there. When you start demanding that someone else allow it to run--the Internet, for instance, or a publisher a distributor other than yourself, no, you are then impinging on their rights to handle their own choices of product.

And that's not censorship. Censorship is something the government does, using governmental authorities. And when you get into that, the discussion really belongs on the political forum.

But should you be permitted to read anything you want that you can get your hands on? Sure. No one has an obligation to give it to you, though.

Pretty much my thoughts on that, too. As far as the MPAA goes, well, when they give recommendations, that's cool. When they insist on cuts to meet a certain rating, it gets closer to the line. But it's still not true censorship until the gummint insists on the cuts before the picture can be released, under penalty of law, like it was under the Hayes code.

Where we get sticky is when people like Jock Sturgess are threatened with arrest and confiscation under pornography laws (his nude photographs of children and teenagers, all in non-sexual situations, are classics). How explicit do these pictures have to be before we cross that line? And, more important, why?

 

[lovecraft68]

Tipper Gore and the "Washington Wives" big crusade against music, mostly heavy metal and rap, it seemed had a very long lasting and unfortunate affect.

It cost Al gore the election against Bush. Keep in mind that a lot of kids in the eighties listening to the music she was condemning were now in their thirties and voting and they remembered her for that.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

That depends on what you are calling censorship. If you're saying that Literotica shouldn't deny the posting of anything (which is what some mean when they raise it here), no, I'm not with you. This is a private business. They have every right to only carry the products they want to carry.

Should you be able to print out what you want to say in any way at your own cost and distribute it yourself--yes, I'm with you there. When you start demanding that someone else allow it to run--the Internet, for instance, or a publisher a distributor other than yourself, no, you are then impinging on their rights to handle their own choices of product.

And that's not censorship. Censorship is something the government does, using governmental authorities. And when you get into that, the discussion really belongs on the political forum.

But should you be permitted to read anything you want that you can get your hands on? Sure. No one has an obligation to give it to you, though.

This. Really nothing needs to be added.

 

[Kantarii]

Tipper Gore and the "Washington Wives" big crusade against music, mostly heavy metal and rap, it seemed had a very long lasting and unfortunate affect.

It cost Al gore the election against Bush. Keep in mind that a lot of kids in the eighties listening to the music she was condemning were now in their thirties and voting and they remembered her for that.

I know I never forgot that shit. Utube was a great reminder going back a watching the senate trial with Dee Schneider of Twisted Sister on the stand testifying. Sure he made an ass outta himself, but no one else in a band had the fucking guts to stand up and say a word in defense when it came to music, bands, and lyrics.

 

[Magickalgirl]

Censorship sucks

Especially if it's done by our government without the consent and support of the majority... I remember what they put Howard Stern thru!
Facebook censoring the news and Google censoring their search engine totally sucks and portrays a warped America.
Then we have the mainstream media censoring the news!

Naaa. I don't like censorship. I feel it could lead to people living lives that will never be actualized

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Especially if it's done by our government without the consent and support of the majority... I remember what they put Howard Stern thru!
Facebook censoring the news and Google censoring their search engine totally sucks and portrays a warped America.
Then we have the mainstream media censoring the news!

Naaa. I don't like censorship. I feel it could lead to people living lives that will never be actualized

Um... you seem confused. The government isn't making Facebook or Google censor stuff (and Google seems to be remarkably even handed for a company with stockholders to answer to.) In general, the tech companies have been willing to stand up to the US government to greater or lesser degrees for some time. (Though they seem to have caved to Chinese government demands in some cases.)

Now we do have issues with *bias*. Fox news on one side, PBS on the other, both entirely eager to cater to a specific audience and not carry news that might upset their usual clientele. But that isn't censorship; that's people in business selling the product they think will best sell. (And their claims notwithstanding, PBS does sell - and takes government handouts.)

At any rate, Facebook started out as a "find hot girls" college site and became a social contact site in general. You're insane if you think you can get news there. It's like looking for science reporting on buzzfeed.

You seem to have some specific issue in mind, like "my viewpoints are underrepresented on the internet." That may be true but it's not censorship. It's most likely that no one cares about your viewpoint and the internet is designed to help people find the content they care about. Which means they won't find you if you're fringy enough.

If you want to start some sort of "uncensored" news or social views distribution site, feel free. I think you'll find it's impossible to avoid bias, and people will actively try to flood your site with their views in disproportion to their accuracy or relevancy. (Google faces people attempting to rig their search results ranking continually.) You'll probably also find the government doesn't care a fig what you print, unless maybe you veer into hate speech.

 

[Magickalgirl]

Nope

Um... you seem confused. The government isn't making Facebook or Google censor stuff (and Google seems to be remarkably even handed for a company with stockholders to answer to.) In general, the tech companies have been willing to stand up to the US government to greater or lesser degrees for some time. (Though they seem to have caved to Chinese government demands in some cases.)

*****Not confused... My comment about the gov and Facebook/ Google were two separate observations, each observation was followed by a period to show the completion of my thought.
I never said what you read.

Now we do have issues with *bias*. Fox news on one side, PBS on the other, both entirely eager to cater to a specific audience and not carry news that might upset their usual clientele. But that isn't censorship; that's people in business selling the product they think will best sell. (And their claims notwithstanding, PBS does sell - and takes government handouts.)

****Bias is bias. Censorship is censorship.

At any rate, Facebook started out as a "find hot girls" college site and became a social contact site in general. You're insane if you think you can get news there. It's like looking for science reporting on

****There are millions that visit Facebook every day. Doesn't matter if they are trying to get their news or not, they are subjected to the rhetoric.

You seem to have some specific issue in mind, like "my viewpoints are underrepresented on the internet." That may be true but it's not censorship. It's most likely that no one cares about your viewpoint and the internet is designed to help people find the content they care about. Which means they won't find you if you're fringy enough.

*****I had no agenda except to speak my mind and contribute to a discussion. Recently read an article where several news outlets are putting out "editorials" that are actually paid for by private companies but bei f presented as and with the public news, with no disclaimers!

If you want to start some sort of "uncensored" news or social views distribution site, feel free. I think you'll find it's impossible to avoid bias, and people will actively try to flood your site with their views in disproportion to their accuracy or relevancy. (Google faces people attempting to rig their search results ranking continually.) You'll probably also find the government doesn't care a fig what you print, unless maybe you veer into hate speech.[/QUOTE]

***** I think YOU like to hear yourself talk and you have no problem telling someone you don't know that they are confused, laden with an agenda and better off on another site!

Good evening Sir!

 

[HandsInTheDark]

***** I think YOU like to hear yourself talk

Often.

and you have no problem telling someone you don't know that they are confused

Absolutely true.

...and better off on another site! Good evening Sir!

On the contrary, you'll fit in very well here. Go sit next to Noir, you'll have great conversations.

 

[jaF0]

As I recall, Tipper was reasonably hot back then and probably would have been a good fuck.

 

[Magickalgirl]

Thanks for the reference

I don't know who Noir is and don't care.... You make a reference to someone about someone that isn't on the thread and that you have no idea if I even know this person or not! So you two birds with one stone! Good going! So proud...

So all of your verbal diarrhea, nasty comments and accusations... I just realized, are all for YOU!


You are the star. You have the floor. Get up on the stage little guy and have your say. Be a hero. Feel good about yourself. Pat yourself on the back. Good job! You're a great contributor and conversationalist! It's been pure pleasure talking to you!

Go ahead, reply, I know it will literally hurt your type of character not too. So shoot your blanks away, I will no longer respond.

 

[Magickalgirl]

As I recall, Tipper was reasonably hot back then and probably would have been a good fuck.

Yes! I remember she was highlighted on the news quite often, and got many major magazine covers.

They were a good looking couple too!

 

[Magickalgirl]

As I recall, Tipper was reasonably hot back then and probably would have been a good fuck.

I just don't see her on her knees tho! lol. But you may be right, they say it's always the ones you least suspect that are the wildcats in the bedroom

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Especially if it's done by our government without the consent and support of the majority... I remember what they put Howard Stern thru!
Facebook censoring the news and Google censoring their search engine totally sucks and portrays a warped America.
Then we have the mainstream media censoring the news!

Naaa. I don't like censorship. I feel it could lead to people living lives that will never be actualized

Sorry, you lost me there, up in the red. The "tyranny of the majority" is the greatest danger to democracy. You've declared just that: it's ok to dominate the minority if you're the majority. Well, it isn't. And that's the primary reason behind the Bill of Rights. Those amendments were added to protect individuals against tyranny. A democracy isn't a matter of winner gets to decide, nor even of toleration of diversity. It is a delight in differences and in dissent. If you get a chance, visit the National Parks site at Manzanar, the internment camp for Japanese-Americans during WWII; pay attention, and at the end of the exhibit you may appreciate the essence of freedom and democracy.

Aside from that, give due consideration to Pilot (sr71plt); he's pretty much got it all there.

 

[Magickalgirl]

Sorry, you lost me there, up in the red. The "tyranny of the majority" is the greatest danger to democracy. You've declared just that: it's ok to dominate the minority if you're the majority. Well, it isn't. And that's the primary reason behind the Bill of Rights. Those amendments were added to protect individuals against tyranny. A democracy isn't a matter of winner gets to decide, nor even of toleration of diversity. It is a delight in differences and in dissent. If you get a chance, visit the National Parks site at Manzanar, the internment camp for Japanese-Americans during WWII; pay attention, and at the end of the exhibit you may appreciate the essence of freedom and democracy.

Aside from that, give due consideration to Pilot (sr71plt); he's pretty much got it all there.

I hear you and I understand what you're saying... I did not mean to say that I would endorse a tyrannical system. I don't know how to verbalize how I disagree with the FCC coming into the power they had... we didn't give it to them, not directly, and we had no say or insight into their investigations. They seamed beyond reproach back then and kind of picking and choosing who they hit. In fact we have many factions of our branches of government now that seem beyond reproach and the public has no insight into their practices. Did Americans have a say about the internment camps? I can't see my grandparents being okay with that and if asked, would have supported.

I'm ignorant to the process that even led to us imprisoning our own people! I will read up on it though, now I'm curious as to how that even freaking happened in the first place!

You are stating that it was through the majority of Americans wanting and supporting that decision? Correct?

See, it scares me every time O passes an executive order without the consensus of the people. That's what I feel would be a tyrannical rule.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I hear you and I understand what you're saying... I did not mean to say that I would endorse a tyrannical system. I don't know how to verbalize how I disagree with the FCC coming into the power they had... we didn't give it to them, not directly, and we had no say or insight into their investigations. They seamed beyond reproach back then and kind of picking and choosing who they hit. In fact we have many factions of our branches of government now that seem beyond reproach and the public has no insight into their practices. Did Americans have a say about the internment camps? I can't see my grandparents being okay with that and if asked, would have supported.

I'm ignorant to the process that even led to us imprisoning our own people! I will read up on it though, now I'm curious as to how that even freaking happened in the first place!

You are stating that it was through the majority of Americans wanting and supporting that decision? Correct?

See, it scares me every time O passes an executive order without the consensus of the people. That's what I feel would be a tyrannical rule.

It would be too much to discuss here, but central is that even the consensus of the people should not be an excuse to deny even one person her rights. The internment of the Japanese was complex, and the government knew it was violating the law of the land. They stalled the ACLU challenge to the Supreme Court until after the war, knowing they would have lost. They felt the action would reassure the majority of Americans, and even proceeded in the face of a petition in Seattle, signed by 10,000 citizens, beginning with the mayor, demanding the government respect the rights of their Japanese friends and neighbors. The display that ends the exhibition shows the importance of dissent to democracy, quoting Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, and displaying a 4-foot enlargement of a crowd in New York protesting Bush's invasion of Iraq. We need differences to be free, to survive. We should nourish them, not stifle them.

 

[sr71plt]

Facebook censoring the news and Google censoring their search engine totally sucks and portrays a warped America.
Then we have the mainstream media censoring the news!
(

Tilt (again). Facebook isn't an authority. It doesn't censor. It can suppress, but it's exercising its right to establish what its product is.

 

[Magickalgirl]

Tilt (again). Facebook isn't an authority. It doesn't censor. It can suppress, but it's exercising its right to establish what its product is.

Majority doesn't give authority?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Majority doesn't give authority?

That's what I've been trying to tell you! There are no rights if they exist only by the opinion of the majority.

The US Declaration of Independence itself declares certain rights inalienable, and for some reason, the Supreme Court tends to uphold such rights, even in the face of a majority.

 

[sr71plt]

Majority doesn't give authority?

I'm sorry. You're off in a cloud somewhere.

But on what you posted--no, having a majority on something--especially in the moment--doesn't automatically make it legal or happen. George Bush the lesser got elected president without the majority of votes for one, and we just had another attempt at gun control legislation deep sixed when all the polls say there's a clear majority in favor of some greater form of gun control then we have.

But, sorry. This has nothing to do with censorship or a private business' right to choose what it's products are going to be (which are two different slices at the "withholding" concept). You're just wandering around in a wilderness on this, and I don't really see that you've clearly stated your question or your beef. So, just going to have to leave you hanging--plus your post to Hands indicated you've got a very short fuse.

 

[Magickalgirl]

That's what I've been trying to tell you! There are no rights if they exist only by the opinion of the majority.

The US Declaration of Independence itself declares certain rights inalienable, and for some reason, the Supreme Court tends to uphold such rights, even in the face of a majority.

Tio, everything I'm saying is going totally against what you're trying to explain to me! Ugh.

Please give me an example. Give me an example where the majority of people that were given a voice, actually voted to directly hurt another group. Please, I am not asking in a snarky way. I like that you're trying to show me something I'm not seeing.

When we vote for a president, we are voting on his ideals, ideas and future efforts, but they can be so diverse that when you vote you may not agree with his specific choices across the board. So I am trying to say we need more power by being involved more as the people who are dependent on these public officials and that should be acting out the majority's needs and wants and not just for the powerful and rich and incorporated. But now I've gone full circle!! I must be driving you crazy.

 

[Magickalgirl]

An example

Last year the hospital where I lived decided that they wanted everyone that worked there to get flu shots. Many of the staff were up in arms and no one wanted to be forced to immunize.
Well, the staff all got together, from all three locations of this hospital, in three different cities and voted and signed against it and for the right to chose. It became a public debate and the story was updated daily by the local news. Well, even though the majority of the staff was totally against it, the board of directors of this corporation pushed it through and they were fired if they didn't take the shot. So even if it was against your religious or against what you thought was right for your own body, you had to find a new job. I truly believe that there were many that didn't give a rats ass if they had to take the shot or not... But they voted to support their coworkers.

 

[NotWise]

Please give me an example. Give me an example where the majority of people that were given a voice, actually voted to directly hurt another group. Please, I am not asking in a snarky way. I like that you're trying to show me something I'm not seeing.

I'm surprised that someone who could pass the "over 18" rule on this site would ask such a question.

Let's start more-or-less locally with the suppression of African-Americans in the US southeast. It was express. It was intentional. And really, it's still going on, though it's more subtle than it used to be.

I don't know if you realize it, but the Holocaust in Germany during WW II was a policy supported by the majority -- the Nazi's were an elected party and racial cleansing was a public policy.

Then there's the relatively recent genocide of Muslims in the former Yugoslavian states.

Do I even need to talk about recent African history?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Tio, everything I'm saying is going totally against what you're trying to explain to me! Ugh.

Please give me an example. Give me an example where the majority of people that were given a voice, actually voted to directly hurt another group. Please, I am not asking in a snarky way. I like that you're trying to show me something I'm not seeing.

When we vote for a president, we are voting on his ideals, ideas and future efforts, but they can be so diverse that when you vote you may not agree with his specific choices across the board. So I am trying to say we need more power by being involved more as the people who are dependent on these public officials and that should be acting out the majority's needs and wants and not just for the powerful and rich and incorporated. But now I've gone full circle!! I must be driving you crazy.

Just considering your own country (I'm presuming you are USA), remember the majority of your countrymen agreed with female subjugation, slavery, Indian Removal and the Indian wars, segregated schools and Jim Crow laws after emancipation, prohibition, persecuting homosexuals, and, of course, those things dearer to you, including censorship. Now consider how many other polities have passed laws with majority approval baring women, ethnic groups, skin colours, religions, etc. from certain rights.

You seem to think that all limitation and harm is done by a powerful elite whom the majority of people will oppose; now take a look at Donald Trump, and the majority of Republican voters who endorse his proposals to hurt other people. I would propose that as Pogo once famously said, "We have met the enemy, and they is us." The majority has always tended to demand that everyone follow what they think is right.