Control is never relinquished voluntarily, it only expands. If the government has the power to block access to one site they will do it with more, for increasingly less justifiable reasons, until they eventually don’t bother justifying it at all.
Government censorship is not permissible in a free society, period.
Government censorship is not permissible in a free society, period.
Why?
I mean that as a genuine, serious question. Why?
I understand that Americans are raised with this as some kind of article of faith, but have you ever actually sat down and come up with a rational justification for that point of view?
There are many societies that are on all objective levels more free than tbe US, which are not absolutist on free-speech, so why do you believe that?
I’m sorry, but that’s just trite. Why does censorship, within bounds defined by a democratic decision making process, eventually get abused for oppression when so can every other right which we accept governments can control? What is UNIQUE about censorship?
ALL society is a tradeoff of rights. When you put someone in jail, you deprive them of fundamental human rights more or less by definition. Jails absolutely DO get abused for oppression. Yet we accept that for a civilised society.
Grade-school appeals to Orwell are not a good enough explanation for why freedom of speech is a unique shibboleth in US society. Particularly if “because otherwise it will be abused for oppression” in particular does not stand when your much-vaunted freedom of speech is being abused for oppression; Citizens United is exactly the kind of decision that uses free-speech absolutism to oppress.
Control is never relinquished voluntarily, it only expands. If the government has the power to block access to one site they will do it with more, for increasingly less justifiable reasons, until they eventually don’t bother justifying it at all.
Government censorship is not permissible in a free society, period.
Why?
I mean that as a genuine, serious question. Why?
I understand that Americans are raised with this as some kind of article of faith, but have you ever actually sat down and come up with a rational justification for that point of view?
There are many societies that are on all objective levels more free than tbe US, which are not absolutist on free-speech, so why do you believe that?
Well, let me ask you a related question: do you think it is acceptable to ban books? Why or why not?
Because censorship eventually gets abused for oppression. It’s just too slippery a slope. For an extreme example of this, you should read 1984.
I’m sorry, but that’s just trite. Why does censorship, within bounds defined by a democratic decision making process, eventually get abused for oppression when so can every other right which we accept governments can control? What is UNIQUE about censorship?
ALL society is a tradeoff of rights. When you put someone in jail, you deprive them of fundamental human rights more or less by definition. Jails absolutely DO get abused for oppression. Yet we accept that for a civilised society.
Grade-school appeals to Orwell are not a good enough explanation for why freedom of speech is a unique shibboleth in US society. Particularly if “because otherwise it will be abused for oppression” in particular does not stand when your much-vaunted freedom of speech is being abused for oppression; Citizens United is exactly the kind of decision that uses free-speech absolutism to oppress.