Hereandnow wrote: ↑
November 4th, 2018, 3:17 pm
Ok, then I'll play: If you accept censorship on the part of the parent ("it's a matter of degree" you argue)
I used parental vigiliance as one example of censorship as practiced in the private sphere.
but think the general public is I assume by your thoughts above, better than children in applying well reasoned thinking the issues plainly stated, unedited and uncensored,
There is no such thing as "the general public". There are individual persons. Children are not all the same level of maturity, and adults are not all the same level of intellectual capacity; nor are all people in similar emotional condition all the time. Another example of private censorship would be the withholding of a hurtful opinion from sensitive people, or waiting for a more propitious moment to deliver bad news. Everyone with a bit of consideration and common sense uses judgment in what to say when, what to show whom, when to remain silent.
I believe you should reconsider: it is a "matter of degree" with these as well.
Degree, type, reason, venue, medium, timing, yes.
But you've shifted from the private to the public. Agents of information dissemination have responsibilities - to the polity, to their professional standard, to the law, to their regulating authority. Governments have their own rules - as I also mentioned.
Absolute freedom of speech is a dangerous thing
Also impossible. Any absolute is impossible. Social animals set limits on the individual freedom of their members in action and expression, for the sake of stability in the group. This is understood as part of the bargain: you get the support and protection of the group and accept the limits imposed by whatever the social organization happens to be. Yes, the degree of control varies greatly from one social structure to another.
All governments forbid - and severely punish - the revelation of military secrets; they all have some laws against publishing some other kinds of information, against false alarms, threats, blackmail, incitement and so on. Degrees, yes, vary. But there is always some
It's no use being allergic to the word.
in the hands of a citizenry as morally arbitrary as ours if we are being effectively propagandized away from a foundational set o f values that defend, among others, freedom of speech. In other words, if the playing field becomes ripe with the fruits of the freedom to lie, dissemble, exaggerate, and the like, freedom becomes dangerous, for in this case, it serves the interests of what has become a utility for the powerful to exploit the least advantaged; at least, this is what is happening now.
That's not a matter of freedom and mutually agreed limits to freedom; that's about the corruption of an organization.
Foucault understood that power always already is embedded knowledge, and this knowldge could be for "good," e.g. the power that sits with socially liberal concepts, or for oppression, as with the traditional taboo on sexual freedom (Foucault was very gay). Such matters of what is good and what is not remain a mystery, but someone like myself would argue the arguments for socially liberal concepts are an easy win.
There is no escape from the values of one's culture; nor can any culture shake off its history. Deciding on the degree of liberty for individuals inside an organization is never complete: it's a continuing debate, a constant negotiation. There is always a force that wants to impose itself on aspect of its subjects' lives; there is always a radical opposition that wants to shed all constraint; there is a faction in the middle that supports control, a faction that advocates liberty; a centrist group that keeps trying to maintain balance between the two.
Anyway, there are many different categories of knowledge, and of information and of communication. Can't make one rule fit them all.