Ethics of Censorship

[Darorinag]

What do you think? Is censorship ethical?

Should it be legal? etc.

I think it's highly unethical. Because it degrades the individual and disregards his/her opinion, in an attempt to mould public opinions when one cannot subdue the masses rightfully.

Any thoughts?

Btw, this IS an intellectual thread...

[loseyourname]

Censorship should never be tolerated in a free, open society. Dissenting opinions must be heard.

What exactly do you mean by "subdue the masses rightfully?"

By the way: How do you feel about censorship of human presence? I mean, as in the barring of undesirables from entering any given country.

[Darorinag]

What exactly do you mean by "subdue the masses rightfully?"

I mean, trying to rightly convince them about something, instead of using an iron fist to force them to shut up and accept it.

How do you feel about censorship of human presence? I mean, as in the barring of undesirables from entering any given country.

Barring undesirables is a basic right that goes all the way back to the "establishment" / "founding" of countries and nationalities. It is not comparable to censorship. People died for their own country. It is an insult to the children of those who died defending their own countries when people who ruin that country are allowed to come in and even receive the money that is supposed to go into making that country a better place rather than supporting undesirables who collapse on the government. How is it comparable to censorship?

Besides, Armenians don't like Azerbeijanis or other non-appealing people in their own lands, yet they want other countries to accept them and embrace them as their own. Why? Ditto for others, i.e. Chinese, Indians (Asia), etc.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag Barring undesirables is a basic right that goes all the way back to the "establishment" / "founding" of countries and nationalities. It is not comparable to censorship. People died for their own country. It is an insult to the children of those who died defending their own countries when people who ruin that country are allowed to come in and even receive the money that is supposed to go into making that country a better place rather than supporting undesirables who collapse on the government.

Wonderful attitude for an immigrant to have. I agree, though. All you eurotrash should go home and give this land back to the people who cultivated it and respected it for 20,000 years.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by loseyourname Wonderful attitude for an immigrant to have. I agree, though. All you eurotrash should go home and give this land back to the people who cultivated it and respected it for 20,000 years.

Cultivated it? But never civilised it. Had it not been for Europeans, this land would've been a wasteland, just like the reserves. But that is just irrelevant. Btw, Canada is still, in a way, part of what was known as the British Empire, the United Kingdom of today... So technically, I would not be considered an immigrant. In fact, my countrymen died for Canada. So there...

Anyhow, getting back to the issue of censorship... so you think the masses should revolt against it, at all cost?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag Anyhow, getting back to the issue of censorship... so you think the masses should revolt against it, at all cost?

Always, in a national setting. Of course, if a person is living on a private plot of land, then the owner of that land has ever right to rule it as he sees fit, and this unfortunately includes the practice of censorship. In this case, if the tenant doesn't like it, he's probably best off leaving.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by loseyourname Always, in a national setting. Of course, if a person is living on a private plot of land, then the owner of that land has ever right to rule it as he sees fit, and this unfortunately includes the practice of censorship. In this case, if the tenant doesn't like it, he's probably best off leaving.

Well, i'm not talking about practical ethics here. I'm talking in absolute terms. Is it moral or immoral? Not talking about the legality here, although I did mention it. It is perfectly legal to practice censorship within one's margins, but that doesn't mean it's morally right... it might be or it might not be.

[loseyourname]

It is morally right. When you are a property owner, your rights are absolute. It is immoral to infringe unnecessarily upon the rights of a fellow human being, but again, this is not being done so long as that fellow human being is free to leave and choose another private plot to dwell on. That is the essence of capitalism. You vote with your wallet, or in the case of a non-profit entity, you vote with your bottom.

[Darorinag]

OK, but that is relative, because it depends on capitalism. I am talking about a strictly absolute sense... is it right or is it wrong? which one is bigger, the infringement upon property rights, or the infringement upon freedom of human beings and their treatment as individuals?

[loseyourname]

Again, there is no infringement so long as that human being is free to leave at any time.