Censorship?

Are there acceptable uses of censorship, then? The only kind I can think of is age-based ratings.

Government mandated? No.

Restricted to specific places like discussion rooms and forums? Yes, but mostly to keep things on topic.

Anything can inspire horrible actions, now I'd say that something that insights crime sure, but there's a line between inspiring something (you help someone to have an idea) and insighting something (you cause someone to act upon an idea of yours). That line is where the law should be in my mind.

People who think that the Middle East has unified laws on anything are in need of a better education. However rape being allowed if the perp marries the victim (or is already married to them) is a problem in a variety of countries, which (as I linked to before) is a problem in several countries, including some in the Middle East.

Either way, my point was that the UN stats you gave are not good for comparison, as they themselves warn.

I don't believe in legislating away heartbreak (though if you'd asked 14-15 year old me I might have been up for it), which is also something that there's plenty of in unhappy marriages when there isn't a divorce.

As for kids, the effect varies, take for example a friend of mine, her parents aren't divorced and keep splitting and getting back together, when they were going to get divorced she was relived. I have several friends with split parents where the situation is stable, a least one friend where the parents not splitting could have risked people getting hurt.

But then I have myself, my parents argue a lot, I've seen one incidence of physical violence and been told that others happened. However my parents have actually made it work, admittedly in a super weird way (their relationship is currently the best it has been in years, because they both effectively live in their own houses next to each other instead of in one house together), they could have split at some point and I'm sure it was possible (my dad's first wife running off with the bricklayer (he never found a new bricklayer ) shows that), but they didn't. Thing is my home was always stable, I'd suspect that a stable home (split parents, together parents, arguing parents) is actually key for kids.

A divorce does not mean the marriage was miserable, I've had mutual breakups for relationships (well one, well kinda two, it's hard to not go "well this obviously needs to end and isn't working" when someone is breaking up with you). You can conclude that a relationship isn't working and not be miserable. Likewise plenty of unhappy people don't (or can't) get divorced, comparing divorce rates between countries with legalised (and culturally accepted) divorce is fine, but let's compare them.

Also you've failed to link " liberal lifestyle" and "erroneous and destructive decisions when it comes to choosing a spouse and the way of living with them". Let's compare divorce rates within the EU shall we? Top 5 to bottom 5?

• Belgium 71%
• Portugal 68%
• Hungary 67%
• Czech Republic 66%
• Spain 61%

• Slovenia 38%
• Poland 27%
• Greece 25%
• Italy 25%
• Ireland 13%

Some outside numbers just for fun. US: 53%, Cuba 56%, Kuwait 42%, Russia 51%, Belarus 45%, Netherlands 43%, Sweden 47%.

I've no idea what to make of those numbers. Belgium and the Netherlands are similarly liberal you'd think but have very different rates, Eastern and Southern Europe are not super liberal areas by EU standards but can be found at both the top and bottom of the pack. Hell I can't even find any correlation between divorce accepting countries (Spain only legalised it in '81 and Ireland in '95), economically strong countries, Catholic countries or anything.

Sure, private censorship, goverment mandated safety based censorship, some levels of security based censorship, censorship for privacy of individuals (censoring (as in legally enforcing the destruction of) revenge porn).

It's about avoiding exstreams and drawing the line in the right place.

Fire in a crowed there? Revenge porn? Leaked celeb nudes? Classified information? You don't think the goverment should have a role in censoring any of that?

edited 12th Mar '16 1:58:02 AM by Silasw

Interesting, censorship for privacy. When someone says "censorship", one typically thinks of the censorship of certain themes in fictional media.

Slightly younger me thought it was done with this, but what does that person know? Here we go again:

Death threats are already illegal in several places, and I have no problem with that. That being said, if this hypothetical person was willing to express their opinions in a calm and sensible manner, I would listen to them.

Maybe some variation of "I really don't like you" or even "Rape should be legal" would get the point across without needless threats or insults.

Regarding the recent discussion:

Media that glorifies/justifies rape or otherwise "inspires crime" is bad and should be censored, but public executions are fine? I'd like some clarification here.

You can find a correlation between Catholic countries which had dictatorships a few decades ago (Portugal, Spain) and high divorce rates (hint: divorce was not allowed, except on very specific cases outlined by Canon Law during the dictatorships, where the clergy were 'nail with flesh' (to use a popular Portuguese expression) with said dictatorship - which is why there was lots of hidden cheating, marital rape, domestic violence and so forth).

There are also other factors, but it involves a lot of deep cultural explanations that are not relevant to the topic of censorship). And some specific economic ones as well.

Also, I think this country is a very liberal country, even with a conservative mentality (it's not a contradiction, seriously). We've legalized co-adoption by same-sex couples recently, gay marriage was legalized some years ago, and we're currently talking about euthanasia.

edited 12th Mar '16 8:42:18 AM by Quag15

X3 What else is it when the press is not allowed to publish certain thing by law?

"go die" is not a threat under certain definitions.

You're a liberal county, but I'm comparing with the Low Countries and the Nords. As for divorce, wouldn't it being illegal for a long time also apply to Italy and Ireland though? Why would the dictatorship make a difference? Hell Greece had a dictatorship as well.

There are certainly reasons for each country to be the way they are, but they seem to be nation based and not something you can draw from one country to another.

edited 12th Mar '16 7:47:44 AM by Silasw

As for the middle two, I would prefer classifying that as a civil rights issue (e.g., right to privacy, etc.) rather a restriction of free speech. A bit semantic, I suppose, but framing makes a big practical difference, saying you support privacy rights has an entirely different connotation than saying you support censorship.

Fire in a crowded theatre, I agree. Crying wolf like that can kill people.

Classified information, my understanding is that it functions to guard against leaks, and leaks are more similar to breaking an agreement. That's not an argument against censoring it when leaks happen, but as a practical matter that can be difficult. Although, in terms of threat level, a high level of opaque porousness seems more a concern.

Even though it might lead to people's deaths?

So was I!

edited 12th Mar '16 2:34:41 PM by Greenmantle

Hmm? I was defending classified information. In other words, no.

Or are you arguing the case for the whistleblower? I think whistleblowers have their place, but exposing corruption is very different from just releasing any and all information. The latter is not very ethical, the former can be.

edited 12th Mar '16 2:13:20 PM by CassidyTheDevil

Leaks are only similar to breaking an agreement in some counties, in the UK you're bound by the offical secrets act (which is a law) regardless of if you sign it or not, you can be jailed for sharing classified information even if you never agreed not to share it.

Oh and I think s point is that "a high level of opaque porousness" can lead to the loosing of lives, especially during a war. For example, during the Falklands war press reporting on how Argentinean bombers were making mistakes in their bombing runs lead to the bombers stopping making thouse mistakes, and thus killing more people.

edited 12th Mar '16 8:00:36 PM by Silasw

I agree, and I don't think it's that semantic. Privacy and censorship don't have to co-exist. Anything that's even remotely classified as censorship in this area(deleting leaked private information) is the most impractical part of all, the main struggles of dealing with that is making sure the individuals causing the leak get punished instead of the victims.

Which is a big societal issue, not just government issue.

Several

The question is "Acceptable by whose's standards and for what purposes?"

That also depends on whether you're going by the Harm Principle of limiting speech or the Offense Principle. (More info on both of those here.)

For me, I'm of the belief that political speech shouldn't be punished, save for the kind that is both entirely harmful and/or too impervious to reason to defeat in debate, (i.e. fascism.) Non-political speech that can also be demonstrated to have a harmful effect is also justified in punishing, though to what extent depends on what the harm is.

edited 15th Mar '16 1:26:02 PM by Zennistrad

Arguments and stances aren impervious to reason.

People are.

Even so, I believe my point still stands. History has demonstrated repeatedly that fascist ideology spreads itself through populism and mass appeals to fear and prejudice. Fascists then use their populist appeal to enforce a strict adherence to hierarchy, strip away rights of those they deem lower on said hierarchy, and incite violence against dissidents. Because fascists are motivated by populist appeals to fear, they generally aren't going to be brought down by simply talking to them. We're seeing it happen in the United States right now: no amount of condemnation from the media, pundits, or politicians has been enough to stop Donald Trump.

As far as I'm concerned, stopping fascists is a restriction of speech, but it's not an unjustified one: it's an act of self-defense for virtually everyone else.

edited 15th Mar '16 1:59:37 PM by Zennistrad

Just Fascists? Not Communists (specifically, Bolsheviks) too, who use much of the same techniques?

edited 15th Mar '16 3:18:05 PM by Greenmantle

Cheeeeeeeeeeee Gueeeevaraaaaa!

Be careful. Once the list starts growing, you never know who will eventually end up on it.

Not to mention that both of those groups are usually pretty fond of censoring "harmful ideas" themselves...

edited 15th Mar '16 3:32:27 PM by Corvidae

Le us just ban banning. That way there will not be any banning anymore.

I've been waiting for this comment.

I would say fascism is a much more severe threat currently, but I generally oppose authoritarian socialists as their efforts are entirely counterproductive to their supposed goal. (Full disclaimer: I am technically a communist myself, but a more fitting political label for me would probably be "anarchist.")

That said, I distinguish fascists because they tend to be the first ones to start with rallies that have the intended message of "we think Jews/blacks/Muslims are subhuman and should be stripped of their rights." For both moral and pragmatic reasons I don't think it's a good idea to go around forcing anyone to shut up for say, having a different perspective on tax policy, but when you make a public demonstration whose entire purpose is to serve as a threat to those who don't follow a strict social hierarchy, I'm not going to be too sympathetic when people don't give you a welcome mat. Even a cursory glance at recent history will tell you that when the Klan or the Neo-Nazis march, they're sending the message "we're going to fuck someone up."

edited 15th Mar '16 4:20:20 PM by Zennistrad

Somewhat related.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/thai-police-ban-old-marie-claire-magazine-issue-044815837.html

China is recently censoring news on any attempt to report on the Panama Papers, just a FYI.

Technically speaking, you might argue that there are laws that are bans on certain types of bans. For example, the 1st Amendment includes a ban on banning religions.