Peace, love, and truth ultimately thrive under the light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

When we censor those who most distastefully present a distasteful or false idea, we strengthen the distasteful or false idea and help it propagate.

We become like a lion who not only strengthens the herd by eating the weakest slowest antelope, but also who strengthens the herd by unifying the herd against the lion (the common enemy).

Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun.

Hate and falsehood thrive in and thanks to the darkness.

Peace, love, and truth ultimately will and do thrive under the illuminating light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech.

Falsehood is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

Hate is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

[LuckyR]

When we censor those who most distastefully present a distasteful or false idea, we strengthen the distasteful or false idea and help it propagate.

We become like a lion who not only strengthens the herd by eating the weakest slowest antelope, but also who strengthens the herd by unifying the herd against the lion (the common enemy).

Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun.

Hate and falsehood thrive in and thanks to the darkness.

Peace, love, and truth ultimately will and do thrive under the illuminating light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech.

Falsehood is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

Hate is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

A time worn opinion that is out of date in the post-Truth era.

[stevie]

When we censor those who most distastefully present a distasteful or false idea, we strengthen the distasteful or false idea and help it propagate.

We become like a lion who not only strengthens the herd by eating the weakest slowest antelope, but also who strengthens the herd by unifying the herd against the lion (the common enemy).

Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun.

Hate and falsehood thrive in and thanks to the darkness.

Peace, love, and truth ultimately will and do thrive under the illuminating light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech.

Falsehood is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

Hate is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

"Peace, love, and truth ... open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech." are great. Nevertheless censorship is necessary at times and is generally applied where there are official communication rules to be followed even if censorship is given another name for reason of political correctness.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

"Peace, love, and truth ... open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech." are great. Nevertheless censorship is necessary at times and [...]

I believe that sentence doesn't make sense and thus lacks any understandable meaning as written.

The word 'necessary' is relative, and lacks meaning on its own in the way used above. It only has meaning in relation to or for something else.

For example, the following proposition does make sense: "To get to the hotel, you need to turn right; and, to get to the grocery store, you need to turn left." But the following does not: "You need to turn right, and you need to turn left."

Thus, to use the word necessary in a way that can be meaningfully understood, you would need to specify very clearly what the allegedly necessary thing is allegedly necessary for or to. (Presumably, you would also want to specify why that secondary thing is relevant and/or desirable in itself.)

Generally speaking, every single thing is necessary for some things. And every single thing is unnecessary for some things.

[stevie]

"Peace, love, and truth ... open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech." are great. Nevertheless censorship is necessary at times and [...]

I believe that sentence doesn't make sense and thus lacks any understandable meaning as written.

The word 'necessary' is relative, and lacks meaning on its own in the way used above. It only has meaning in relation to or for something else.

For example, the following proposition does make sense: "To get to the hotel, you need to turn right; and, to get to the grocery store, you need to turn left." But the following does not: "You need to turn right, and you need to turn left."

Thus, to use the word necessary in a way that can be meaningfully understood, you would need to specify very clearly what the allegedly necessary thing is alleged;y necessary for or to. (Presumably, you would also want to specify why that secondary thing is relevant and/or desirable in itself.)

Generally speaking, every single thing is necessary for some things. And every single thing is unnecessary for some things.

Your line of reasoning appears to be appropriate. However not explicitly mentioning a reason why censorship is necessary at times simply leaves open the reason due to the relativity you mention. So it seems that our disagreement is that you deny that there can be a reason for censorship while I affirm that there can be a reason for censorship.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

"Peace, love, and truth ... open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech." are great. Nevertheless censorship is necessary at times and [...]

I believe that sentence doesn't make sense and thus lacks any understandable meaning as written.

The word 'necessary' is relative, and lacks meaning on its own in the way used above. It only has meaning in relation to or for something else.

For example, the following proposition does make sense: "To get to the hotel, you need to turn right; and, to get to the grocery store, you need to turn left." But the following does not: "You need to turn right, and you need to turn left."

Thus, to use the word necessary in a way that can be meaningfully understood, you would need to specify very clearly what the allegedly necessary thing is allegedly necessary for or to. (Presumably, you would also want to specify why that secondary thing is relevant and/or desirable in itself.)

Generally speaking, every single thing is necessary for some things. And every single thing is unnecessary for some things.

However not explicitly mentioning a reason why censorship is necessary

My point wasn't and isn't that you didn't provide a reason for the proposition. It's that (as as best I can tell) there is no proposition at all.

In other words, it's not that you didn't provide a reasoning or a reason to support your claim, it's that there is no meaningful claim at all to provide reasons for.

The statement, "You need to turn right, and you need to turn left" is meaningless. My comment on such a statement isn't ever going to be that it's reasonless, but rather that it's meaningless.

So it seems that our disagreement is that...

I didn't say we disagree, and I don't think we do (or don't). I have no way of knowing or believing or guessing.

I can neither agree nor disagree with a statement that (to me) is meaningless.

(I'm not saying you didn't have a meaning that you meant to convey, which is something I cannot know one way or the other since I'm not a mind-reader. Rather, I am saying that the words didn't and don't convey the intended meaning if any. To the best of my ability to interpret and understand the words, that is.)

you deny that there can be a reason for censorship

I don't recall making any such denial.

In a sense, everything that happens has a reason, perhaps infinite reasons, particularly where reasons means causes or, more broadly, contributing factors, or really anything roughly along those lines.

[stevie]

"Peace, love, and truth ... open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech." are great. Nevertheless censorship is necessary at times and [...]

I believe that sentence doesn't make sense and thus lacks any understandable meaning as written.

The word 'necessary' is relative, and lacks meaning on its own in the way used above. It only has meaning in relation to or for something else.

For example, the following proposition does make sense: "To get to the hotel, you need to turn right; and, to get to the grocery store, you need to turn left." But the following does not: "You need to turn right, and you need to turn left."

Thus, to use the word necessary in a way that can be meaningfully understood, you would need to specify very clearly what the allegedly necessary thing is allegedly necessary for or to. (Presumably, you would also want to specify why that secondary thing is relevant and/or desirable in itself.)

Generally speaking, every single thing is necessary for some things. And every single thing is unnecessary for some things.

However not explicitly mentioning a reason why censorship is necessary

My point wasn't and isn't that you didn't provide a reason for the proposition. It's that (as as best I can tell) there is no proposition at all.

In other words, it's not that you didn't provide a reasoning or a reason to support your claim, it's that there is no meaningful claim at all to provide reasons for.

The statement, "You need to turn right, and you need to turn left" is meaningless. My comment on such a statement isn't ever going to be that it's reasonless, but rather that it's meaningless.

So it seems that our disagreement is that...

I didn't say we disagree, and I don't think we do (or don't). I have no way of knowing or believing or guessing.

I can neither agree nor disagree with a statement that (to me) is meaningless.

(I'm not saying you didn't have a meaning that you meant to convey, which is something I cannot know one way or the other since I'm not a mind-reader. Rather, I am saying that the words didn't and don't convey the intended meaning if any. To the best of my ability to interpret and understand the words, that is.)

you deny that there can be a reason for censorship

I don't recall making any such denial.

In a sense, everything that happens has a reason, perhaps infinite reasons, particularly where reasons means causes or, more broadly, contributing factors, or really anything roughly along those lines.

Well, maybe "yes" or maybe "no" to whatever.

That should be to your liking and we then can agree (on whatever). Right?

[Ecurb]

When we censor those who most distastefully present a distasteful or false idea, we strengthen the distasteful or false idea and help it propagate.

We become like a lion who not only strengthens the herd by eating the weakest slowest antelope, but also who strengthens the herd by unifying the herd against the lion (the common enemy).

Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun.

Hate and falsehood thrive in and thanks to the darkness.

Peace, love, and truth ultimately will and do thrive under the illuminating light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech.

Falsehood is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

Hate is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

I'm a supporter of freedom of speech, and I agree that hate can thrive when hidden. However, you go too far. Falsehood CAN be overcome through exposure; it can also, in different circumstances, become "the truth" through constant exposure. It's clear that some falsehoods spread and thrive when they are exposed -- the most ridiculous conspiracy theories gain credence through repetition.

None of this, of course, suggests that these theories should be censored. People should be free to espouse pernicious falsehoods; after all, the Inquisition was trying to censor what it's practitioners thought to be "pernicious falsehoods". We don't want to travel down that road.

What do you think about the restrictions on free speech in the U.S.? I'd make speech slightly freer: shorter patents and copyrights, no copyright protection in the non-economic spheres (e.g. a school play wouldn't need to pay theo author of the play). I do think we need to support writers, inventors and other creative people so they can make money, so some protections are reasonable.

[Ecurb]

The attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband appears to have been motivated by the conspiracy theories promulgated on the internets. This is an example of how hate and falsehood, expressed in language, can at least be complicit in violence and evil.

The hard question is not whether this is the case (it clearly is), but whether the costs of censorship (loss of freedom and freedom of information) outweigh the evil promoted by false claims.

Scott's position (that hate and falsehood thrive in darkness) may be correct, but it is clearly also correct that they thrive in communities of haters and liars. This makes the issue of free speech more difficult, and we should not avoid the difficulties, whatever our position.

[Nick_A]

Hi Scott

Peace, love, and truth ultimately will and do thrive under the illuminating light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech.

I've learned by experience it isn't wanted and survival of the fittest becomes the dominating factor. Imagine a dozen guys sitting around a table discussing the benefits of peaceful discussion. Now the cute waitress walks by shaking her cute butt and it becomes every man for himself in their efforts to make it with her. This is just natural and on a large scale, I cannot see how it is avoided. All is fair in love and war.

[Pattern-chaser]

When we censor those who most distastefully present a distasteful or false idea, we strengthen the distasteful or false idea and help it propagate.

If we just ignore them, and do not describe their distasteful thoughts, I think we achieve all that we can reasonably expect to achieve?

Although it's actually quite a different case, I think of it the same as not (ever) mentioning the name of the man who shot John Lennon, who did it to gain notoriety, like the film "The man who shot Liberty Valance". By not (ever) mentioning his name, I have reacted and responded appropriately to his action, I think. Have I "censored" him? I don't think so.

Back to your words in the above quote: the only way we help to propagate a distasteful thought is if we repeat it. But is it censorship if we simply don't repeat it?

[Pattern-chaser]

you deny that there can be a reason for censorship

I don't recall making any such denial.

No explicit denial, that I noticed, but your OP does seem to imply that censorship is wrong in pretty much all circumstances, doesn't it?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Well, maybe "yes" or maybe "no" to whatever.

That should be to your liking and we then can agree (on whatever). Right?

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

your OP does seem to imply that censorship is wrong in pretty much all circumstances, doesn't it?

Presumably, 'seem to imply' is subjective, but to me, no, it certainly doesn't seem to me to imply such a thing, especially since I am a known moral nihilist (a.k.a. spiritual anarchist, a.k.a. an amoralist, a.k.a. free-spirited/self-disciplined person), meaning I don't believe in the existence of morality. Here are five other forum topics created by me related to that idea:

• How Unassertiveness Leads to Aggression and the Illusion of 'Shoulds' and 'Oughts'
  
  Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom -- "I don't believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' or other moralizing. So if hypothetically I'm asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", I cannot answer. There are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy, only cans and cannots; and then from ‘can’ there is only do and do not. In my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do..."
  
  The artistically creative diversity of spiritual freedom -- "Content free-spirited creativity emerges in the absence of enslaving moral law and other false idols. Nothing must be done that isn't done."
  
  What Moral Terms Can Mean -- from 2008
  
  The Clarity of Amorality -- from 2007

I would strongly encourage one to avoid reading between the lines of posts on the philosophy forums, and instead going by what I (and others) actually explicitly state. However, if that advice is not taken, then I'd suggest as a backup to instead let the five above topics provide some context to better judge what my words might seem to imply or what might be able to be read between the lines.

[stevie]

Well, maybe "yes" or maybe "no" to whatever.

That should be to your liking and we then can agree (on whatever). Right?

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean.

Perfect. I have no idea what yxou mean.