Free speech and censorship on the Internet

If your assertion about pedofiles was true, the info would just be hosted in a place outside the US, like WikiLeaks. There is no shortage of such sites.

In the absence of any facts, there is no reason to believe that such an agreement to suppress information exists.

This thread will be locked too.

Don't encourage them...

Sorry, no.

Wouldn't be surprised if they shut your account and deleted the thread bc of your disclosure.

Your sarcasm is annoying and ignorant.

I'm blocking you because you are contributing nothing and I get the feeling that you like to trigger people and think it's funny (aka you're a troll). Seek help.

Peace, love, and whatever. Cheers.

A blocked user in a thread against censorship. Ironic. Guess I should explain my thought process.

I have no interest in talking with someone who might have no real stance and/or contributions at all, but simply has fun derailing and mocking threads. I get that vibe.

Censorship has many forms. Pointless posts/trolling can be considered a form of censorship. Take the focus away from the message and put it on the troll. Essentially, I view my actions as counter-censorship.

I have censored this user for the sake of facilitating the conversation and to hopefully have it taken seriously.

The type of censorship I am against is that which aims to hinder discussion and mock it.

Interesting thoughts OP. I dont use the others but Youtube is definetly using double standarts on some videos. It looks like you attracted some of this site's trolls. Good luck to deal with them.

Not really Kay.  The OP would like some discussion on the issue raised.  I agree with some censorship otherwise we'd have highly offensive material posted.  A similar argument could be made about free speech. 

Free speech doesn't mean that a person can say anything they wish when it could lead to individuals, or groups of people being targeted or physically hurt.  Another  example which has been used before would be allowing an idiot to shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema.  Nobody would find those actions acceptable.

In the UK we're still waiting for the inquiry to start on paedophilia.  See the thread Monsters and Whistle-blowers.

While Firstplay is correct about the old fire in a theater adage, offensive speech is a bit different. Private sites like this one can ban just about anything they wish. The government, however, cannot. The point of our First Amendment freedom of speech is to protect offensive, vulgar, or unpopular speech. That is why the Ku Klux Klan is allowed to host rallies and marches to this day. 

good forum piece , controversial but needing exposing as an issue affecting us all ,

hope cc dont close this a its well written not derogatory

ownership defines ,chess.com is owned it is a company , we choose to deal with

it has structure , finance and an admittedly very well done chess site , its got flaws but why ?

a company is just that a wage paying or share rewarding venture ,finance influences this , so chess.com has revenue sources , one is advertising

can i ask ?

has chess .com had advertisers saying they will withdraw income if certain censorships of things the advertisers considered anti affected their (cc) choice on this issue ?

expecting no reply , thanks

Anok,the OP has already said he wants the moral not the legal aspect discussed

It will stay open as long as it stays on track...aka within the rules.  

Good Luck with that.

Thanks for your thoughts all. I'm going to unblock ilikewindmills for now. I think I was possibly overreacting a bit and I'd like to reserve blocking for more extreme examples.

Kaynight, well, I find you clever which makes your humor acceptable to me even though you mock me hahaha. I also don't really take what you say too seriously because I get the vibe you're not trying to be seriously abusive.


I thought of an interesting similarity between censorship and liberty.

Censorship/moderation in some form is needed to counter other forms of censorship, like the example I gave with trolls who take attention away from the topic.

Similarly, liberty requires restraint in some form. Those who impose overbearing restriction/control over others must be restricted/controlled themselves.


The position I argue for, is the position that equalizes and represents truth. Not the position that endorses propaganda and inequality. But I suppose in the end the methods are the same to reach different goals. I can accept that. It doesn't compromise my morals.

 

But who gets to decide what is true? Was that post really  a troll or just ironic or sarcastic in a way you missed? Is evolution true or is Creationism? Many of the situations you mention will, and should, be decided individual by individual. I understand that Chess.com deletes posts with profanity. If they didn't they'd lose a ton of money. But Chess.com is a private business. On the other hand, if the government bans books, (which it has done on many occasions) we'd lose many of our finest works of literature: Ulysses by James Joyce was banned; school libraries banned The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned; The Canterbury Tales by Chaucer was banned; Doctor Zhivago was banned in the Soviet Union, and when its author, Boris Pasternak won the Noble Prize for Literature, his government forced him to decline it.; The Grapes of  Wrath was banned if some states if you can believe it.

 

Who is to say what is art and what should be banned? Are you comfortable letting the government decide? I'm not.

I don't trust the Govt on anything.  They represent the elite in society and that's who they'll speak for.  As has been mentioned by others this site is a private business and they can do as they wish.  We should expect consistency though, as I'm still pointing out in another thread (This site) which doesn't happen. 

The moderators argue that offensive posts are just 'missed' rather than allowed to run.  My view is that there's a bias with plenty of evidence to back it up.

If the site owner has a bias, and he does, then maybe that bias should be there for us all to see in black and white.  This way there'd be no confusion.  The racists and fascists who used to use this site as a platform would presumably still be welcome, and those of us who find their views abhorrant would know to play chess somewhere else. 

They're mostly still there, many people have read what was allowed, and when others complained it was deemed political and censored.  However, the OP was'nt deemed worthy of censorship despite them often contravening rules and running for months.

Censorship in some area's is necessary I feel, if only to defend minorities often targeted by those with an agenda.  Censorship in a democracy is still necessary as there are those who wish for an undemocratic system where words can be used to attack people, individually or collectively. This is with the real aim of harm and usually to detract attention from what's happening in the political world. Those who do this don't like democracy; it's their goal to remove it.

Get ready for a lot more censorship now in the United States.

@Litwitlou [#20]

I think you make really great points here.

At first when I started this thread I thought I was against all censorship. I've since realized I use censorship too and my thoughts on it are fluid and changing, even now.

I suppose I draw the line at a point which limits censorship to only to preventing abuse. I do not agree with any censorship that seeks to limit the spread of an idea. Even if the idea is something outrageous that I completely don't agree with, like the flat earth, I would defend anyone's right to talk about it in a non-abusive manner.

The only censorship I can agree with is that which seeks to eliminate meaningless noise which serves no real purpose and only degrades the conversation. I suppose that can be a subjective distinction and imperfect but I find it necessary and beneficial for the "right reasons."


Of course, I'm talking about censorship within the context of a small-scale forum conversation like this one. I don't agree with censorship of art or books in any form. Even if the books are mindless hate speech, words are just words, and thoughts shouldn't be governed. I don't believe the government should be allowed to censor anything, and only individuals should be allowed to "block" other individuals on a case-by-case basis.


Let's hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of the American people and not fascism. There is a small amount of hope. They've already ruled against the fascist immigration policy put forward recently. Now our government is attempting to censor the EPA (obviously for sinister $$$ purposes which will hurt all of us) which I absolutely despise. The government is against its own people for the sake of $$$ just like it's always been, huge shocker... Sorry if this last bit here is overly political - but these things are within the context of this thread and transcend any political affiliation. We need open and accurate information to be able to make important decisions for ourselves and no matter where anyone falls on the political spectrum they should agree with that.