Ethics of Censorship

[Darorinag]

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

Legally, he can. Morally, is it right? I think censorship of ANY sort is unethical. The fact that anyone would want to silence anyone else, be it on their own property or anywhere else is a pointer that there's something wrong.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag Legally, he can. Morally, is it right? I think censorship of ANY sort is unethical. The fact that anyone would want to silence anyone else, be it on their own property or anywhere else is a pointer that there's something wrong.

That is the whole essence of liberty, property rights. Whether it is immoral or moral has no bearing for that is what constitutes liberty and what the State is supposedly set out to "protect".

The fact is man has duality, he acts morally and immorally, you cannot absolve that, therefore he has a choice to do good and evil. Censorship is a part of reality. It's when the State that is supposed to protect liberty, ends up censoring and interfering in the property rights of individuals, that's when you know you have a problem.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That is the whole essence of liberty, property rights. Whether it is immoral or moral has no bearing for that is what constitutes liberty and what the State is supposedly set out to "protect".

The fact is man has duality, he acts morally and immorally, you cannot absolve that, therefore he has a choice to do good and evil. Censorship is a part of reality. It's when the State that is supposed to protect liberty, ends up censoring and interfering in the property rights of individuals, that's when you know you have a problem.

I am talking about philosophy here, not politics. Moral, not legal.

Just because something is part of reality doesn't mean that it's right, or that we should accept it and move on.

I am talking, for example, about censorship on the internet by governments, even though the sites are owned, paid for, and run by people. I am also talking about the morality of censorship (not its legality) on other websites, the censorship in that case being implemented by the owner of the website. Censorship ALWAYS tells there's something wrong with ANY system. It tells us that the person who is doing the censoring cannot fight what is being said in any way other than silencing it because he can't bear to hear the truth and be exposed in front of everyone. THAT is the essence of censorship. It stems from a person's (or government's) inability to correct a situation or accept the fact that views differ. Which is why it is unethical, IMO.

[loseyourname]

When a three year-old whines incessantly, you don't argue. You censor.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by loseyourname When a three year-old whines incessantly, you don't argue. You censor.

That still doesn't make it right... Even if the 3 year old and the adult are on the same level when it comes to censorship...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag I am talking about philosophy here, not politics. Moral, not legal.

Just because something is part of reality doesn't mean that it's right, or that we should accept it and move on.

I am talking, for example, about censorship on the internet by governments, even though the sites are owned, paid for, and run by people. I am also talking about the morality of censorship (not its legality) on other websites, the censorship in that case being implemented by the owner of the website. Censorship ALWAYS tells there's something wrong with ANY system. It tells us that the person who is doing the censoring cannot fight what is being said in any way other than silencing it because he can't bear to hear the truth and be exposed in front of everyone. THAT is the essence of censorship. It stems from a person's (or government's) inability to correct a situation or accept the fact that views differ. Which is why it is unethical, IMO.

All politics emanates from philosophy, that is a moot point. The whole point of property rights and liberty, or why the "State" was originally constructed, was to protect the property rights of individuals precisely so they can do whatever they want within their property, as that is what is meant by individual property rights. The moment you start telling other people what to do in their property, you have politics.

[Darorinag]

Yes, but philosophy doesn't emanate from politics. I'm talking more about philosophy here.

[Anonymouse]

Having no censorship is an impossibility. There are degrees, but censorship or not is a non-issue, since every society composed of humans, has or will have a bias, even down to the last private property.

Thus, it is within the admin's property right to ban whomever he likes or delete whichever post he desires.

"Philosophically", or "Theoretically", or all those other tenses that do not deal with here, but rather some ideal world, have no bearing.

[Darorinag]

How do you know it's impossible? You speak as if you know everything. We don't know if it's impossible. It IS possible to have no censorship at all. There are forums out there that don't have ANY censorship whatsoever, and they work GREAT!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag How do you know it's impossible? You speak as if you know everything. We don't know if it's impossible. It IS possible to have no censorship at all. There are forums out there that don't have ANY censorship whatsoever, and they work GREAT!

Two things.

1. I know everything.

2. It's impossible because every society is composed of humans and every human has biases, ergo, every society will deem something more acceptable than others, i.e. it used to be you can criticize Jewry, now you'd be smeared for it, and most "hate literature" is indirectly "censored" ( such as Mein Kampf, when will you see that on the school reading list, but back in the day Henry Fords "The International Jew" was something akin to a Michael Crichton novel ).