/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21848763]

Is censorship ever justified

[Anonymous No.21848776]

That's an interesting question. My instant gut reaction is to say no but I'll have to think about it awhile.

[Anonymous No.21848779]

>>21848763
Is self censorship justified?

[Anonymous No.21848780]

>First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging.
>To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common.
>... There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty of Thought and Discussion (On Liberty ch. 2)
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty2.html

>Let me add a final remark about Faurisson’s alleged “anti-Semitism.” Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi — such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here — this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense.
Noam Chomsky, Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression
http://chomsky.info/19801011/

>I have come to the conclusion, not once but several times, that, as far as I am concerned, I do not agree with legislation that makes it illegal to utter pronouncements claiming that there was no Holocaust. I do not want to muzzle any of this because it is a sign of weakness not of strength when you try to shut somebody up. Yes, there is always a risk. Nothing in life is without risk, but you have to make rational decisions about everything.
Raul Hilberg
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.1-2/hilberg.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE

[Anonymous No.21848790]

>>21848763
Yes. If it protects children.

[Anonymous No.21849050]

>>21848763
Only when your mom does it.

[Anonymous No.21849578]

>>21848763
Yes but only I get to say what should be censored

[Anonymous No.21849587]

>>21848763
>Is censorship ever justified
It is the only way to counter the truth. Lies can be refuted, the truth MUST be censored!

[Anonymous No.21849738]

>>21848763
Creatively in the context of books? Never (unless it's doxxing some ig)

[Anonymous No.21849751]

Picrelated

[Anonymous No.21849759]

sometimes

[Anonymous No.21849866]

>>21848763
Tl;dr is not really except for cp, but people should be given the choice of what they see or not or what's appropriate for their kids or not.

Basically anything is fine to make but not everything is appropriate for everyone.
So a children's tv channel probably shouldn't show hardcore pornography and the book section for kosher cooking shouldn't have a book about barbequing pigs in it.

It's not a matter of forcing stuff not to exist, just a matter of putting stuff where it properly belongs so people can make informed choices on what they want to see or not.
If someone doesn't want to see gorey violence then don't force it on them. If they don't want their kids to see people fucking then don't force it on their kids again their wishes, etc.
But it's all about voluntary choice.
If someone willing wants to see something that someone else created then no matter how offensive the content, they shouldn't be prevented from it, nor of the creator be prevented from sharing it with willing viewers.

Only exception I am willing to consider is in regards to the production and distribution of child sexual abuse images. Since the creation of that material requires the victimization of people who can't consent.

[Anonymous No.21849897]

>conquer europe
>implement perfect nazi state
>create local chinese style intranet with no foreigners allowed
>make it radically free speech and total anonymity
>enshrine these values in the constitution, no one may tamper with them
>everyone is a perfect nazi by day, 4chan shitposter letting off steam by night
>all things in perfect balance
>nazi officials laugh good naturedly at being mocked for incompetence and take it as constructive criticism
>fifth columns try to infiltrate and manipulate discourse to make the people disloyal
>everyone is so happy from being a nazi it's impossible to turn them
>everyone is so chilled out and good at banter it's impossible to rile them up
>monthly parades for funniest and most racist /tv/ post (separate parade for each)
I created the perfect civilization, your welcome

[Anonymous No.21849909]

>>21849897
Estimated population: 5000

[Anonymous No.21850007]

>>21848763
No. People that are offended should grow a dick.

[Anonymous No.21850642]

>>21849050
Dads have the same right to censor.

[Anonymous No.21850657]

>>21848763
Yes. They were right to kill Socrates, I say this completely unironically and without any malice.

[Anonymous No.21850664]

>>21848763
My instinct says no, but the very fact the Leftoid can invent some nonsense like the "paradox of tolerance" or whatever has convinced me that actually, we should in fact completely dominate and silence the enemy, since the enemy will never reciprocate my principles nor give me the benefit of the doubt, nor spare me from censorship if he had the power.
Truth be told I do not consider left-wing people to be human. They do not have souls, as men do (ask them, they will deny that they have souls) so this is a moot point. Actual human beings must not be silenced, but animals may be.

Of course what I speak of there is free expression of ideas and opinions, there are obviously things which we might call "censorship" like the erasure of sensitive information in missives during wartime, or the confiscation of pornography, etc., which I would support as a matter of course, because those are not a part of any expression of real ideas.

[Anonymous No.21850666]

>>21849909
5001.

[Anonymous No.21850670]

>>21849909
5000 shitposter spartiates maybe, with 100000 redditor slaves to till the soil

[Anonymous No.21850796]

>>21848763
A lot of "censorship" these days is just perpetually outraged people that need to gaslight someone to have a scapegoat. To the point actual censorship isn't recognized.

[Anonymous No.21850817]

>>21848763
No it undermines all our goals. It doesn't protect anyone, not even children.
Another more honest word for "censorship" is "lies". Anyone who intuitively likes censorship is evil.

[Anonymous No.21850845]

>>21850817
>our
I don't identify with you and I don't share your goals

[Anonymous No.21850857]

>>21850845
Doesn't matter retard. Censorship undermines any project you can come up with.

[Anonymous No.21850861]

>>21850857
>ANY project
Do you think the people trying to censor you now don't have a project?

[Anonymous No.21850879]

>>21850861
Not really, they're just evil people spreading evil and destruction based on their inherently evil nature. They don't actually think about anything they do.

If they do think it's about anything more than destruction they're undermining their own project. Everything productive or additive has a structure, lies undermine our ability to create those structures. Lies can only be used to destroy or delude temporarily, not to build reliable structures.

[Anonymous No.21852236]

>>21849751
lol