Censorship and Social Media

First you get censorship with a knife or a gun. Then you get self-censorship.

Wasn't it Edmund Burke who said something along the lines of "in order for evil to prevail, you only need the good men to stand idly by"

 
Last edited:
So Darwkins felt he was afforded protection by the system(s) he was critical of. If other system(s) pose a threat to his well-being, he is not critical at all. Which undermines his ability to do his job.

My thoughts on self-regulation of (social media) speech, particularly related to groups that feel empowered enough to facilitate a kind of "mob justice" in regulation. You might find this on other forums where your opinion doesn't match the mainstream, either by language, or political views. You might find yourself ostracised by Moderators, unless you align yourself with the forum group-think.
Because social media also permits more informal talk, less-considered, with grammatical errors and a more casual wording, in it's natural form there are many fault-lines to expose for those of a more analytical disposition. Easier to manipulate interpretation to something far from the authors original intent.
The mob mentality of self-regulation is illustrated in Orwell's 1984, with anyone being a possible informer to the Thought Police.
 
PalazioVecchio said:
First you get censorship with a knife or a gun. Then you get self-censorship.

Wasn't it Edmund Burke who said something along the lines of "in order for evil to prevail, you only need the good men to stand idly by"

Click to expand...
This is only a problem with those on the right who are free speech absolutists.

Dawkins has every reason not to comment. He also has every reason to treasure living in a culture which has evolved in a Christian environment. There is no need to explain why, because it’s obvious.

That has nothing to do with his atheism and rejection, not just of Christianity, but of all religious beliefs. He has always though acknowledged the values they bring to many people.

That he can freely criticise Christianity, but not others, speaks about those values. He admires much of Christian culture. He just doesn’t believe the myths. We must surmise what he feels about others, but sometimes silence is every bit as powerful as words.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
This is only a problem with those on the right who are free speech absolutists.

Dawkins has every reason not to comment. He also has every reason to treasure living in a culture which has evolved in a Christian environment. There is no need to explain why, because it’s obvious.

That has nothing to do with his atheism and rejection, not just of Christianity, but of all religious beliefs. He has always though acknowledged the values they bring to many people.

That he can freely criticise Christianity, but not others, speaks about those values. He admires much of Christian culture. He just doesn’t believe the myths. We must surmise what he feels about others, but sometimes silence is every bit as powerful as words.
Click to expand...
And it stops him getting stabbed !
 
Teddy Eagle said:
So freedom of speech is contingent upon the willingness of those being spoken about to stab others.
Click to expand...
Of course not! That’s like taking all the words in a sentence and rearranging them so they mean something else.

What was said was it’s only the free speech absolutists who seem to have an issue with the approach demonstrated by Dawkins. As a public figure he is simply being careful whilst subtly communicating his underlying beliefs.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course not! That’s like taking all the words in a sentence and rearranging them so they mean something else.

What was said was it’s only the free speech absolutists who seem to have an issue with the approach demonstrated by Dawkins. As a public figure he is simply being careful whilst subtly communicating his underlying beliefs.
Click to expand...
And why does he need to be more careful in some cases?
 
Everybody knows that you can diss Christianity to your hearts content. Without suffering a violent sticky end. And its one thing to rib Christianity if that's your own family & ethnic background.
But its a bit rich to hear fellas at Speakers Corner.....fellas who are super-sensitive ( & violent) if you criticize THEIR religion. But they will blab on and on about Christ not really being Divine and Christianity is all wrong, Christians are stupid and "they allow their women to parade in the streets dressed like wh0.res "....... etc etc.
By the way, that final quote was from the time Dawkins spoke with a beardy bloke in a dress somewhere in the Middle East.

Its like, censorship for thee, not for me.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course not! That’s like taking all the words in a sentence and rearranging them so they mean something else.

What was said was it’s only the free speech absolutists who seem to have an issue with the approach demonstrated by Dawkins. As a public figure he is simply being careful whilst subtly communicating his underlying beliefs.
Click to expand...
And that is your A+
 
PalazioVecchio said:
Everybody knows that you can diss Christianity to your hearts content. Without suffering a violent sticky end. And its one thing to rib Christianity if that's your own family & ethnic background.
But its a bit rich to hear fellas at Speakers Corner.....fellas who are super-sensitive ( & violent) if you criticize THEIR religion. But they will blab on and on about Christ not really being Divine and Christianity is all wrong, Christians are stupid and "they allow their women to parade in the streets dressed like wh0.res "....... etc etc.
By the way, that final quote was from the time Dawkins spoke with a beardy bloke in a dress somewhere in the Middle East.

It’s like, censorship for thee, not for me.
Click to expand...
What you believe is entirely your own business. It’s what you do that matters to others and where the law has control.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
And it proves the original point that freedom of speech is a variable concept depending on who is being spoken about.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t.

All it proves is some people in the public eye are understandably cautious. They aren’t legally restricted in any way. They are exercising their freedom to speak, or not to speak.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
It doesn’t.

All it proves is some people in the public eye are understandably cautious. They aren’t legally restricted in any way. They are exercising their freedom to speak, or not to speak.
Click to expand...
So not because they're afraid of being stabbed up then. Let every group take up this policy and see what happens to freedom of speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top