Ethics of Censorship

[Darorinag]

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

That only works in a capitalistic society where individuals own property. So you are talking in relative terms.

Do you get what I'm saying? I don't know...

[loseyourname]

In a society where no one owns anything, how can there be censorship? With no one in ownership, there would be no one in charge and hence no one to do the censoring. Anarchy would ensue, and not the good kind.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by loseyourname In a society where no one owns anything, how can there be censorship? With no one in ownership, there would be no one in charge and hence no one to do the censoring. Anarchy would ensue, and not the good kind.

By absence of ownership i didn't mean absence of a government. I meant a system that is very close to communism. Communism and anarchy are two totally different things. Besides, censorship can be related to thoughts and views. People will always have different views about things, no matter what, even if they don't own property. Views about other people, views about this and that. there will always be different views, that is what sets us apart from other people.

[loseyourname]

There is still ownership under communism, only the state owns everything instead of individuals. Individuals own only their own homes and belongings. In that case, again, the individual has the right to censor as he sees fit in his own home. The state then has every right to censor as it sees fit on the land that it owns. That is one of the reasons that communism is so problematic. When all industries and land are owned by the state, individual liberty is almost nonexistent.

[Darorinag]

Not everything that is legal is moral... Not everything that is illegal is immoral. Get it? That's what I'm trying to say...

[loseyourname]

Let me state this as clearly as I can. A property owner has every right to allow what he likes and does not like on his own property. This is not an infringement upon human liberty, as unwelcome statements are free to be made elsewhere. State censorship is another matter, as the state is essentially meant to exist in protection of individual liberties. Most of the time it does not, but this is the principle.

Censorship isn't a matter of absolute morality. It needs to be put in context. For example, at a school, if a student is cussing out his teacher, that is disruptive and takes away from the experience of the other students. That kind of behavior needs to be stopped, as that is an infringement upon their liberties. If a man goes into someone's home and starts insulting him, then that homeowner has every right to ban him.

[Darorinag]

This is where we disagree, I think.

I think censorship is and should be an absolute concept. Either there is censorship, or there isn't. "There ought to be limits on freedom" is a hypocritical sentence. Freedom is just that - freedom. Nothing more, nothing less. And the very fact that you are putting limits on it means that it is not freedom. The result of intersecting freedoms would be conflict, but that is part of how things have been, are, and will be. Censorship is only a social construct that aims to limit that conflict. Hence, it is not ethical. It all goes back to what we value more, human freedom, or whatever else there is. If we have to take into account everyone else and respect our limitations with regards to them, then even small amounts of lying would have to be punishable by the law.

[anileve]

Originally posted by loseyourname
Censorship isn't a matter of absolute morality. It needs to be put in context. For example, at a school, if a student is cussing out his teacher, that is disruptive and takes away from the experience of the other students. That kind of behavior needs to be stopped, as that is an infringement upon their liberties. If a man goes into someone's home and starts insulting him, then that homeowner has every right to ban him.

I completely agree with you Lose. In this world there is no such thing as “absolute” there are only degrees and relativism.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by anileve

I completely agree with you Lose. In this world there is no such thing as “absolute” there are only degrees and relativism.

You say that as if it's an established truth. How do you know that? Fact is, we don't know. So what we can do is go back to human nature and try to preserve our fundamental human values of freedom, instead of trying to crush one another like animals, saying that the fittest should survive..

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Let me state this as clearly as I can. A property owner has every right to allow what he likes and does not like on his own property. This is not an infringement upon human liberty

Bingo. So since this website is property of the admin he can do whatever he pleases.