Censorship – What Is It Good For? (Part 2)

21 August, 2006 at 10:07 pm | In Incompetence Exposed | 17 Comments

A friend of mine, Jack, has written an article response to my post on censorship. In an attempt to reduce my arguments to oblivion, he has used contradictory arguments and personal attacks, which were neither warranted nor necessary. I will now respond to his article.

The full post can be found here:

here

Jack begins his claims with an attempt to clarify that governments must do some “governing”. He says that censorship is as much a tool of control as “taxes, laws, town planning and education.”

This argument will now once again take us back to the roots of democracy, another reason for the inaugural formulation of government.

The American Heritage Dictionary offers us this definition of democracy:

de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

For the sake of this argument, let us assume that we do live in a democracy as the Establishment has us believe.

All Praise The Establishment

According to the definition, the role of the government is to REPRESENT the people, nowhere does it say that it is a form of control.

In fact governments, a recently new concept, were created once the population grew too large, in order to gather the people, to represent them when making laws, not to control.

Regardless of how well the government represents the population (we’ll leave that for another time), its role is just that, represent not control. In fact, I would disagree with the whole definition of the word “govern”, which should not be a term used to describe “governments”, as ironic as that sounds.

Note that Jack refers to taxes, laws, town planning and education as being similar to censorship. Here is how they are not.

As I share a moderately-left wing economic ideology, I believe that governments should be able to aid some of the disadvantaged, for whatever reason, individuals in society. That is why the taxation of the upper class is important in my view. It would help aid the lower classes with social welfare, education (which is important to avoid government control) and health.

You may also argue that the government representatives need an income themselves and a small share of tax will go to them.

The concept of laws is also a valid part of society. It protects people harming other people. No, words do not harm. Laws prevent such things as violence, theft or dangerous behaviour. All things directly affecting people. Unlike words.

I fail to see your point about town planning. About education, however, I feel that the opposite is plausible. A lack of education would lead to government control. It is easier to control unintelligent people than the educated. And education, when uncensored helps prevent crazed individuals from taking power.

What I believe is that any form of government works, when no corruption occurs. A rarity these days.

They’re everywhere…
Jack then goes on to say that censorship is not linked to greed, although I never mentioned it was. And that a rating system is in place, run by a whole board, which allows everyone to view appropriate material for their age category.

In fact, I not only didn’t mention that censorship is linked to greed, I said the opposite. I explained that people in higher positions feel it is their duty to protect others from words, and I feel that this is wrong. Once again, their may not be one old guy sitting in a chair, censoring the material, but the truth is, most government officials are older than the populations average, have more conservative views (which may come out after being elected) and are completely out of touch with what goes on in their country. Thus this “fair board” is not all that fair at all.

Unfortunately in Australia, the X-rating, the highest rating available, bans all forms of portrayed sexual violence, rape, fetishes or portrayal of under-aged sex. So no, adults can not watch violent bondage and rape scenes.

What you say about gang-rapes and portrayed murder, is only wrong in a society where we make it wrong. Yes, I am proposing a radical view here, but it is plausible if people just think outside the moral high ground Christian box that they were brought up in.

Also you seem to say that self-censorship and fear of retribution is a stupid argument?

Then how do you explain Stalinist Russia, where people chose to disassociate themselves with their family because of fear of retribution.

This part of your article takes a very contradictory turn.

I will quote:

“A person can say whatever they want, so long as it does not directly harm another person or incite hatred, the reality is that nobody will publish or air his thoughts because very very few people agree with him.”

and

“Imagine if a neo-nazi, obsessed with eradicating the jews gets hold of one of these mediums, just once. His advertisement promotes an anti-jewish rally in the city. “

Oh, but very few people agree with him, and he won’t get published… Make up your mind.

I agree with you om one point. The pen is mightier than the sword. Killing people is not showing might, but using your pen to create an intellectual work (such as this) is great, and only becomes greater when you take restrictions off the use of the pen.

Your point about the neo-Nazi is what I will address next.

In a censor-less society, the neo-Nazi will say what he feels, but will be shot down by the majority speaking out. Most people are not extremists, they will not support his views. And the public knowledge that the majority is against him will deter him from committing these acts of hate.

In the censored society, these hateful acts go on behind closed doors, the neo-Nazi supporters will gather in secret, and deal a surprise blow to their opposition. Wouldn’t it be safer to know when and where they are going to strike, if they do something as ignorant as discussing these acts in public.

Another hypothetical to deal with is the direct opposite of the hate-speech situation.

Say a majority hates a certain race, and a minority wants to speak out against the hate shown towards that race. Would we censor them?

Moving on, and Jack claimed that my statement saying Australia does not acknowledge free speech was bigotry. He directed me to this link, which he himself had not read

The analysis of legislature states:

“Freedom of Speech and the Constitution

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.”

Please do not call me a bigot, when you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of.

Bigot

In my conclusion I would like to address the issue of morality.

Yes, my stance on this issue is quite radical and perhaps not tested and tried. However, the issue of morals is what annoys me most about this.

What do you see as being moral? Is there anything wrong with viewing pornography, or children viewing it. Is acting out a death immoral? And how so? What dictates our morals. In a censored world, we believe those things to be immoral, unethical. But in a changed uncensored world, morals can change. Yes maybe the making of a violent pornographic film may be debateable as to whether it hurts anyone, but viewing it never can and never will.

Thank you for everyone’s support on this. After just four days I’ve had 1700 hits, made the homepage of shoutwire.com, and am 50th on WordPress.com’s most popular blogs

17 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

“Killing people is not showing might, but using your pen to create an intellectual work (such as this)”
You cant be serious. This is not an interllectual work.
When I read this, I get the feeling that the only people who hate censorship are people under the age of 18.

Comment by Andrew — 22 August, 2006 #
Well firstly, ANYTHING WRITTEN BY ANYONE IS AN INTELLECTUAL WORK… you idiot….
secondly that statement is rather absurd….

Comment by junaman — 22 August, 2006 #
I totally agree with what you have written here. Everyone in this country has to take a chill pill and let some things go. We got bigger things to worry about than a swear here or there or a boob slip at the superbowl.

Comment by rit19 — 22 August, 2006 #
With censorship comes euphemism to outflank censorship – with euphemism you change the meaning of words – with a changed meaning through euphism genocide sounds like a nice and sound theory to solve problems.
It happened in the past and some nations are on a good course to repeat it.

Comment by murx — 22 August, 2006 #
I don’t understand people who are for censorship, I guess they’re happy being sheep.

At least we still have the internet.

Comment by bored — 23 August, 2006 #
“I don’t understand people who are for censorship, I guess they’re happy being sheep.”

Junaman is a sheep >_>

Comment by Pox — 23 August, 2006 #
your a sheep

Comment by The stinky cheese man says — 26 August, 2006 #
This is an argument not without merit, however there are some important aspects of the subject, censorship, which have been wholly overlooked. I wil attempt to point out the irruglarities and perhaps the hypocrisy that is evident in the piece. Summarised, junaman’s article:

Censorship is a tool by which the government controls the people. This is directly linked to greed and the love of power. It suppresses alternative viewpoints to that of the goverment. Censorship is useless because humans should be able to intellectually “consume” that which other humans present them with. Governments want us to believe that words hurt people; this is incorrect. Words do not kill, shoot and harm people. Australia does not acknowledge freedom of speech, and it has no legal support. Governments that seek to impede freedom of speech are going down the path to an Orwellian society. Censorship has no place in society. Pornography, violence etc should be allowed on TV free of legal restriction. Children should be allowed to watch something as natural as sex, and parents have a responsibility to instil them with values.

I will now attempt to destroy it…

Censorship is as much a tool to control the people as taxes, laws, town planning and education. Every single one of these government controlled activities is a restriction upon our liberty. What is the point of having a government if you do not allow it to have a degree of control over the people? I am not advocating a totalitarian state, but I do believe that when we vote for a government, we want them to do some governing.

Censorship is not directly linked to greed. Junaman, the author, attempts to create a vision of powerhungry old men, desperatley likiting the public’s free speech so as to better their personal position. I would point out that there is more than just a man in a chair looking at TV shows, movies and newspapers pressing YES or NO. There are huge review boards and panels that determine what you can or cannot see. And even then it is not a YES or NO. We have rating classifications, so that adults can watch violent bondage and rape scenes, and children can watch more suitable shows. Does Junaman advocate a society where children can watch an actress be brutally gang-raped and choked to death without being forwarned of the gruesome display? Is that right? Also, the government is not in direct control of these independent institutions, and cannot therefore suppress opponents views. As to Junaman’s “fear of retribution” if he presented his opinions on a more mainstream medium, that is complete and utter trumped up garbage used to gain sympathy for an illogical and impractical philosophy. A person can say whatever they want, so long as it does not directly harm another person or incite hatred, the reality is that nobody will publish or air his thoughts because very very few people agree with him.

Words can harm people. The pen is much greater than the sword. A frontpage advertisement in a newspaper is greater than gun. A 2 hour long film can do more damage than a tank. Imagine a society with complete freedom of speech. Imagine if a neo-nazi, obsessed with eradicating the jews gets hold of one of these mediums, just once. His advertisement promotes an anti-jewish rally in the city. He conjures all sorts of demonising fiction designed to spread the hatred of the jewish race. A day/month later, 4 jews are killed in hate crimes.

The neo-nazi is free to say ANYTHING he wants: where certain jews live, how to build a bomb or a gun, lies about crimes committed by jews, and defame jewish businesses. These all serve to directly and indirectly cause hatred of a minority; just substitute “jew” with “muslim”, “aborigine”. That is why every single democracy in the world limits freedom of speech; it can be abused at the complete detriment to society.

Australia does not acknowledge freedom of speech, and it has no legal support.

After reading that line in Junaman’s article, I realised how ignorant and presumptive the author had become in the pursuit of his agenda. In 1992, the High Court held that a right to freedom of expression was expressed in the Constitution. Australia is part of the UN, and abides by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines freedom of speech. Visit: http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm for more info.

In conlusion, I believe that censorship does have a place in society. Censorship reflects the morality and ethical choices made by society – such as not letting 5 year olds watch a person be shot in the head or a neo-nazi not naming jews and spreading hate. Too much censorship is bad, but on the other hand, too little censorship can rapidly lead to the erosion of society and perhaps even morality. The vast majority of people want a society whereby they can live a happy life, and a degree of censorship contributes to the stability of the society. However, too much censorship and we will not be exposed to “truths” and other events that might be deemed to disruptive. It is a balance. I believe that at the moment Australian censorship is about right. I disagree with Junaman that it has *no* place.

Cheers,

Jack (I figured I would post this here, I am closing down my other blog)

Comment by porcelainmonkey — 29 August, 2006 #
First of all, I apologize for this delayed comment, but I just found this blog tonight and this entry caught my eye.

In response to Jack’s points I agree whole-heartedly with most, but there is one that nags at me quite a bit. You accept laws as a fair and fundamental part of government as we know it today claiming it “protects people harming other people” which you somehow differentiate from censorship. So I propose to you this purely hypothetical yet plausible scenario of how laws protecting us from physical/financial etc. harm might not be as different as censorship laws. Pretend you are a working class citizen in your mid 30s climbing the corporate ladder. You have the confidence, the skill, and the determination to make it to the top and it seems there is no stopping you. Yet one day a random person on the street calls you a kike. Just hearing the word instantly brings back memories of your childhood you had worked so hard to store at the darkest, deepest, depths. It brings back meories of constant ridicule you faced as a child living as the only jewish kid in your small town which in turn drives you into deep depression for the next few days and eventually leads to your suicide. Is that end result not just as damaging as any sort protection our laws provide from physical harm? You state that in a world without censorship such terms as kike would not be offensive and I agree, but the fact remains, we do live in a world with censorship and some people are offended by words and switching from the censorship society we live in today to one of limitless free speech would take a very difficult transition that I’m sure I, myself, and others could go through but something that is not very likely for the reason you pointed out, the people in power will it so. Either way, any response to this would be much appreciated.

Comment by Jespitia — 2 September, 2006 #
Thanks for that insightful comment Jespitia.
I understand that indeed I am pushing a very hard line and that may be because of my personal experiences with censorship.
Yes, I understand that such a revolutionary reform would be almost impossible to effect.

I will however say this. In our censored society as a whole, not just certain countries, during the course of history, we have seen many wars, genocides etc. Things like that happen today, and I am sure will continue to happen while we run this form of society.

I feel that at these times we are at a critical stage of conflict in the world where something/someone could break at any moment. And due to nuclear weapons the whole planet will be blown into small pieces…

I think that at this time also, government’s are reducing more and more people’s civil liberties in exchange for “security”. However, I think I think that THIS will be the major catalyst for war.

So if it would be possible to attempt to cease war, would it not be worth the effort?

Comment by junaman — 2 September, 2006 #
I can only speak for what I have experienced, and living as U.S. citizen all my life I’ve always felt I could speak out openly against my government without having to fear incarceration or unfair penalties of any sort.

Regarding giving up civil liberties for security, that can be applied to the patriot act in the U.S., which I agree is complete bullshit but no dissenters of this act are seriously considering bloody revolution or nuclear war. Nor will it ever come to that in my opinion as our basic fredoms including speech are enshrined in our bill of rights and I still believe the people in power in this country are representing the will of the people who elected them and thus if there would be enough people to start a revolution, there would likely be enough people in congress that represent those potential revolutionaries and repeal said censorship law/s.

Like I said, I’m all for a censorship free society but my country is far too conservative and if it ever happens here it will not be in my lifetime. Seeing as how I feel that censorship is not a big enough issue to start a bloody revolution in my country, I do not believe it would be worth the effort to try to get the U.S. to elimiante all types of censorship, but again this only applies to my country.

I’m not sure how close other countries are to revolution but I’d guess that while censorship might be part of the reason, other factors such as economics/ religion/ politics would weigh far more into ther decision of choosing to revolt or not, but I could be wrong as I am not as educated on states in danger of open revolt as I’d like to be.

Comment by Jespitia — 3 September, 2006 #
Hello, it is a very interesting site! There a lot of useful information here and I like the topics which are discussed here. I have my own blog and I would be glad if you visit it and tall me about your impressions. Please visit it here: http://www.bondage-guide.net and feel free to mail me if you have any suggestions or questions. Sincerely.

Comment by Alex — 20 September, 2006 #
good post man

Comment by henry_t — 31 December, 2006 #
free xxx asian shaved pussy

Comment by xfxxtocqqs — 26 March, 2007 #
Warm greetings! Thanks for all the information, a very nice and well done site! Cheers.

Comment by betonsports — 31 October, 2007 #
New Here.
I will possibly blog on some nazi leaders just out of a personal interest of mine. Will I be banned? This is a very text incentive and I am just wondering do they censor pro right material aka ban your account? Im not a ‘nazi’ so to speak but I do have a unique outlook can someone let me know?
thanks

Comment by bengee4 — 18 April, 2009 #
Lovely to see such a wonderful site. Thank you

Comment by healthcare medical — 20 May, 2009 #