Delicious LiveJournal Links for 7-21-2010

[andrewducker]

• Oakland green lights industrial marijuana cultivation
  (tags: marijuana drugs)
• Why not censorship?
  (tags: freespeech censorship)
• I didn't know Conversation had rules!
  (tags: conversation communication psychology aspergers)
• The Gender Stereotype Game
  (tags: gender stereotypes)
• Scots drink a quarter more alcohol than other Brits
  (tags: alcohol uk scotland)
• A screenwriter has a very strange encounter, and writes the best blog post I've read this year.
  (tags: writing crime reality)
• Entanglement - a simple, but addictive, HTML5 game
  (tags: games javascript puzzles)
• Sharp launches world first Android netbook -kinda.
  (tags: Telephone android)
• PressThink: Objectivity as a Form of Persuasion.
  (tags: journalism ethics media bias news)
• Scottish rents rise as home buyers opt to rent
  The best performing city in Scotland is Edinburgh, where the average rent for a one bed flat in the city now stands at £520 - a rise of 3.2% compared with last year - while the average cost for a two-bedroom flat has risen 4.6% to £680.
  (tags: scotland housing)
• The differences between Civil Partnerships and Marriage.
  (tags: marriage law)
• SNP to outlaw smutty innuendo. They can fuck off.
  (tags: sex freespeech scotland EpicFail)
• Sony files patent on using stereoscopic lenses to allow two people to share a screen without seeing what the other does.
  (tags: 3d technology games)
• The former head of MI5 says that the invasion of Iraq substantially increased the terrorist threat to the UK.
  (tags: terrorism uk war iraq)

Comments

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Concerning Why not censorship:

The funny thing for me is that the writer of the piece undermines her own argument. She's for banning trolls: "That someone has a right to say whatever they want doesn't mean they're entitled to an audience. No one has a right to commandeer this audience that Jesse, Pam, and I (and our gracious commenting community) built up to have certain discussions. We're no more obligated to print some troll's nonsense than Random House is obliged to publish it."

This argument could be used to provide a similar argument for large scale censorship. Change "this audience" with society and "Jesse, Pam, and I" with government, or other forms of community and or power structures and there you have it. Typical case of having your cake and eating it.

[andrewducker]

I totally disagree. Society _includes_ the people that wish to say things I don't like. That page belongs to four people, and they have control over it. Society at large belongs to everyone, and thus they should be able to say whatever they wish in it.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

To quote the author: "That someone has a right to say whatever they want doesn't mean they're entitled to an audience." I fail to see why this differs solely based on the number of people involved in a given entity.

We already have curtailed freedom of speech in the form of libel and slander laws and nobody sees this as an issue. If other subjects can be agreed on (to a certain, big enough degree), why not do likewise and ban them? We can all think what we want, but that doesn't mean you should automatically be able to say anything you want. Some ideas are dangerous. Some for society in general, like anti-democratic political systems and some for groups of people or individuals, like racism. Why not protect society from them?

An analogy: we agreed that people driving a car should drive a certain speed given certain circumstances because of safety concerns. This doesn't stop people from feeling that speed should be faster. This is open to debate and is often debated. The law has changed and can be changed. Of course it doesn't stop some people from speeding, but it might do for a group of people who don't want to be fined. By reaching these people we make the roads safer for all of us.

[andrewducker]

Some ideas are dangerous.

And the most dangerous of them, in my opinion, is that people should be protected from some ideas.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Why? We protect our bodies from certain types of physical harm, so why not our minds from harmful ideas?

[andrewducker]

Because I don't believe that any idea is more harmful than the banning of free speech or ideas.

Edit to add: When such things are the exchange of ideas. When it comes to direct incitement to violence, or shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, there are direct safety consideration to take into account. But the correct answer to "wrong" speech is to out-argue it.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Seen Inception yet? =)

[andrewducker]

Yup. Was less impressed than most people. Must write up why when I have a mo. Still liked it, but felt it was flawed.

[broin.livejournal.com]

That's fair! I was just thinking in terms of dangerous ideas.

[andrewducker]

Well, when we get to the stage where people are regularly being kidnapped and having ideas implanted directly into their dreams then we can deal with that as a problem. As it is, I agree that advertising, marketing, etc. can be pernicious, but I'd say that they were less pernicious than banning free speech.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Well, I'll get back to you when that is an issue. Next year, probably.

[andrewducker]

Well, if subliminal advertising worked, I'd want that banned. It's when you cross over from "telling people things" to "mind control" that I get worried :->

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Even if these ideas, like fascism or religion will lead to the abolition of free speech if they gain enough traction? Out arguing these ideas has not (always) proven to be effectual. Unfortunately people have a tendency to hold on to believes / ideas that when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

[andrewducker]

By taking on their methods you're becoming them. Fascism and religion both suffer from free speech existing. Open debates about religion and oppression reduce both over time. Forcing them underground doesn't work, it just means that underground movements form and resentments form.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

The problem is that, specially looking at religion, it's better at oppressing free speech than free speech is combating the fallacies that lie at its heart. It's purpose build for that.

Now I'm not saying you should outright ban religion and be done with it. You should try to out argue something first, and if you get in serious trouble you might consider a form of censorship. They're not mutually exclusive. What censorship gives you, that arguing doesn't, is a tool to fight something that otherwise would have nasty consequences.

It's like taking care of your health. You try to live a healthy lifestyle, exercise and get your shots. But if you become ill anyway you take pills to get better. Arguing is a healthy lifestyle, but you might get ill anyway. You'll need to something when you do, and that might be to censor something.

[andrewducker]

it's better at oppressing free speech than free speech is combating the fallacies that lie at its heart
Clearly not true. Look around you and you'll see less and less religion, and more and more free speech. I think it's obvious which one is winning.

If I thought there were things out there that were liable to cause problems with free speech then I'd be worried, but so far as I can tell the only thing that causes this problem is people arguing that we should ban some speech because it makes them feel bad.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Clearly not true. Look around you and you'll see less and less religion, and more and more free speech. I think it's obvious which one is winning.

Maybe in Western Europe. Religion is still huge in the USA, South America and Africa. People here tend to forget we're living in a part of the world that's the exception rather than the rule when it comes to religion. And even here it's still a problem, at the least occasionally. The orange marches in Ireland tend to be rather festive to say the least.

And don't get me wrong I'm not saying we should ban x, y or z right now. But I don't think an outright dismissal is the right way to go either. I think in some cases it can be a valid option and should be treated as such. There's enough reason to do so.

[andrewducker]

No, there isn't.

I don't think you understand my position here. Free Speech is not a means to an end for me. It's not something I endorse because it will lead to other things. It's a vital part of what I consider to be the basics for any kind of society worth living in. If you take it away in order to protect me from the fascists then you have, as far as I'm concerned, joined their side on that issue. Because they want to take away my freedom of speech, and so do you.

I feel the same way about the numerous laws brought in by Labour over the last 13 years - protecting us from terrorism by locking people up without charge was, from my point of view, an awful, terrible act, and one which I would not stand for. This kind of authoritarian approach is the major reason why I switched from voting for them.

Oh, and the US is less religious than it was 20, or even 10 years ago. See here for two fascinating graphs.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

For me it all boils down to a rather interesting problem. If you want to protect something, you'll eventually have to use its opposite to do so. If you don't you'll lose whatever you're trying to protect. And that loss is even worse. That doesn't mean you don't have to be very careful about what you do, as always, but at some point it might need doing IMHO. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[andrewducker]

For me it all boils down to a rather interesting problem. If you want to protect something, you'll eventually have to use its opposite to do so

That makes no sense to me. One does not prevent child abuse by raping children. One does not protect the Ozone layer by releasing CFCs.

But sure, I don't think this is being terribly productive :->

[usmu.livejournal.com]

It's interesting though. And as far as philosophical concepts goes it's true though: prepare for war if you want peace, that kind of stuff. But that's a whole different topic. :)

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Your definition of censorship is so broad in the above that it would apply to cleaning off graffiti from the side of your house. I don't think that anyone would find such a broad definition useful or desirable.

The difference is that the blog is a privately held entity. They can (and should) choose what can go there and what is unacceptable; they're not censoring someone when they remove an animated goatse gif or ban a troll from the comments. Mr. Gif and Mr. Troll are perfectly free to find their own venues to publish, elsewhere.

Censorship isn't someone refusing to publish a work, but rather someone being forbidden to publish a work.

-- Steve also sees the above making ejecting trespassers or lodging noise complaints into forms of censorship, which stretches the term into meaninglessness.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

They're deleting content from their blog. People who have fulfilled the criteria to post a comment, namely register, are stopped from doing what other people who have done the same, are doing. Posting a comment. Even more so: blogs often state that they will not tolerate racism etc. They forbid people to post certain comments. How is this not censorship?

They limit other people's free speech in order to protect their own. This is generally speaking seen as perfectly ok. You seem to think it is. So what's the difference with society in general that makes this ok, and other forms not? Why does it matter if it's a privately held entity? Don't we all own society together?

If we do, all the people who make up society can together decide what to ban or not to ban. We already have in the form of libel and slander laws. We don't have a problem with that. We could do similar things with other categories if we can more or less agree on doing so.

If they decide to ban something, Mr. Gif and Mr. Troll always have a choice. Don't do the crime, or do the time if you get caught. This is what happens at any blog as well. Either they don't post because they know their comment will be removed, or they post and it gets removed.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Even more so: blogs often state that they will not tolerate racism etc. [...] How is this not censorship?

Well, it is, of course. And so what? Where did you get the idea that all censorship is bad?

[usmu.livejournal.com]

That's the whole thing. I don't think that. And that's what I'm arguing. People on the one hand condone certain kinds of censorship while claiming to be hard line free speech advocates. So if the one is ok and the other not, they need to explain how they can clain to be so.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

*sigh* That word, you keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.

-- Steve deleted a couple of tries at explaining, and one of summing up, before deciding to save what ravelled wits remaining to him.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Here:s what I'm working with

Censorship: the limiting of free speech.
Free speech: the expression of ideas through any form of communication by a given entity.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

By your definition, you would be censoring me should I write "dirty, dirty" with my fingertip in the dust on your car and you wash your car at any time thereafter. Your definitions are excessively broad, to the point of becoming meaningless.

-- Steve can define "food" as "stuff you put in your mouth", but that doesn't make pens, air, thumbs, cigarettes, and genitalia provide sustenance.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

For anything to be a proper definition it needs to meet two criteria:
1) it must include everything of the thing you want to define
2) it must exclude everything not of the thing you want to define

Your definition of food does not meet the second criteria. I don't think my definition of censorship has a similar problem.

As to it being broad... Censorship is not a large single homogeneous entity, but a building made up of bricks. Person vs person - Group vs. person - Group vs. Group, but to name a few. Some bricks that are very bad, some mildly so and some pretty much harmless. For me the point is recognizing that, describing the different kinds of censorship and discussing whether they serve a genuine purpose ar not. A