Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 02 2018, @09:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-Disapprove-of-What-You-Say,-But-I-Will-Defend-to-the-Death-Your-Right-to-Say-It dept.

From an editorial in the Otago Daily Times out of New Zealand, Censorship a Trojan Horse:

It's an oft-cited maxim that the news media is the "fourth estate" upon which a healthy democracy stands.

It ensures the three traditional powers of state — the legislature, executive and judiciary — can be critiqued, challenged and curbed from quietly drifting into the arms of corruption and authoritarianism.

A free, fair, open and uncensored media is an antidote to state power and, for all its failings (and there are many), should be treasured as such. There are many countries around the world whose people would give anything for such a freedom.

Yet calls for the banning of certain opinion pieces, cartoons and commentary have risen in recent months, especially from those using social media, a world where such talk is becoming a trend. It is a trend we must confront.

Censorship is to suppress the harmful, the unacceptable, the obscene and the threatening from the media and other forms of public communication. Like a virus attacking democracy from the inside out, it was traditionally the tool of the dictator, though it is one used by many in power.

[...] It pays to query what those demanding censorship — be they celebrities, social-media activists or anybody else — see their ultimate goal as being.

To reduce hurt? To make the world a better place? Possibly, and those motivations are laudable. But the method employed to achieve them is not.

While censorship may be meant as a figurative horse upon which a better future rides, inside the belly of that horse lurks an army of conformity, quite capable of unwitting oppression.

History shows what happens when the fourth estate is no longer free to table all opinions.

It is a bleak picture. Without the disinfectant of exposure, power and ideals tend to corrupt even the most seemingly incorruptible.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:21PM (7 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:21PM (#742790) Journal

    I repudiate censorship. Downplaying opposition to censorship as "moral panic" opens a very dangerous door. It's an especially dangerous door for those who are not in power to open; it's profoundly stupid, in fact.

    Right now Trump is in power. He's not the one calling for censorship, he's the one decrying it. It's the Democrats calling for censorship. They somehow think it gives them a weapon, through social media, to remove Trump from power and to defeat those who elected him. In fact, it puts a very dangerous weapon in Trump's hand, if he gives in to the temptation to pick it up. Do Democrats really want Trump to bring down the heavy weight of the federal government on their heads, when they have practically made the case for him that doing so would be "in defense of democracy and the American way?" Really, everything they're doing is underscoring the case he has been trying to make, that an evil, out-of-touch, and unaccountable cabal, aka "The Swamp," are destroying the country.

    That's the temporal context for this discussion on censorship, but more generally censorship is anathema.

    The proper response, the only response in a free society, to censorship must be antipathy. The only proper response to ideas you don't like in the agora is to contest them. Silence allows them to spread. Repression causes them to explode.

    Fight them with every word and argument you can muster as if democracy and your life depend on them, because they do.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:56PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:56PM (#742854)

    He's not the one calling for censorship

    Trump Wants to Censor the Media [theatlantic.com]:

    Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2017

    I also link this one because its pro-complacency slant would seem to defuse normal MSM hyperventilation and show that yes, Trump is calling for censorship: Sorry, Journalists: Trump Isn’t The First President To Threaten The Press [thefederalist.com]

    Trump can take up six completely different positions on any one issue before breakfast. However, the white queen may count all of that as only one impossible thing, so he is losing badly. Sad!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:36PM (3 children)

      by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:36PM (#742898)

      That is what you get for reading The Atlantic. Trump DOES want there to be consequences for libel, slander and outright falsehood but the biggest weapon he has been wielding against the media is his bully pulpit, calling them out, de-legitimizing them and that is not only entirely proper it is long overdue. The media practice Journalism as a political tactic, it is time to stop pretending they are an unbiased news source. ALL OF THEM.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:54PM (#742967)

        So now you DO want censorship? Cause I'm pretty sure Trump would demand punishment for anyone repeating allegations. Until proof comes out allegations are libel or slander, and in Trump's bizarro world that means he could prevent the media from saying a single unproven bad thing. Yeaaaaah, good job you jackass.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:58PM (1 child)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:58PM (#742972) Journal

        Trump DOES want there to be consequences for libel, slander and outright falsehood

        Which you would be calling censorship in any other situation.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by jmorris on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:17PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:17PM (#742982)

          You seem to labor under a false premise, that "the media" are a formal branch of our government and their exclusive domain is to pronounce The Truth. The media is free to slander HIM, he is a big boi and fully capable of defending himself, and does do to great effect. He is destroying the press in fact. And goodbye to rubbish I say.

          What they should not have the power to do is wander the land destroying those powerless to oppose them and to demand that anyone speaking a truth they have not approved a heretic and subjecting them to unpersoning. And yes, when they knowingly speak lies they should be made to pay the same legal price as you or me would if we did it. No special aristocracy, no royal privilege. Posting rights on Warner Brother's or Jeff Bezo's blogs should grant no rights you don't get if you post on your own blogspot blog. We are ALL equal or none of us are and I damned sure won't bend the knee to the incompetent fools at the New York Times.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:55PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:55PM (#742919) Journal

    I repudiate censorship. Downplaying opposition to censorship as "moral panic" opens a very dangerous door.

    I repudiate censorship as well it's just that most of the "moral panic" isn't actually about censorship.

    Let's say I own a printing press. I choose what gets printed and what doesn't get printed on my own press.

    Is it censorship if I choose not to publish some rando's conspiracy theory? Or, is that being a good editor. Should said rando be able to force me to publish his article? Is interfering with my own editorial decisions censorship?

    That's why we tend to draw the line at government censorship as the "real" censorship. But nobody is advocating for that so the panic is based on straw men.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:37PM (#742950)

      Let's say I own a printing press. I choose what gets printed and what doesn't get printed on my own press.

      Is it censorship if I choose not to publish some rando's conspiracy theory? Or, is that being a good editor. Should said rando be able to force me to publish his article? Is interfering with my own editorial decisions censorship?

      To continue that analogy:

      You practically have a monopoly on copy shops across the country.

      It's like owning Verizon, T-Mobile, AT+T, and Sprint. It's like owning OfficeDepot, OfficeMax, Staples, Walmart, and Target. It's like owning UPS, FedEx, and the US Postal Service. It's like owning HomeDepot, Lowe's, Menards, Lumber Liquidators, 84 Lumber Company, Ace, and True Value.

      How about this: phone companies decide that people with views like DeathMonkey shouldn't get phone service. (fortunately for you, we made this illegal) It's not as if the government is censoring you. You can start your own phone company, write letters, or travel to speak in person.