Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Talk:Censorship

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)



Human rights tribunals[edit]

The section "Censorship dressed up as human rights" is very vague, largely unreferenced, and possibly misleading. I assume it is principally a reference to the Canadian system (see Hate speech laws in CanadaWikipedia); although parts of the Canadian law were apparently repealed in 2013 and it varies significantly from province to province. The only cited example given is of somebody being cleared of hate speech, which hardly indicates a desperate threat to human rights. And the British situation, which is legally quite different, is dropped in the middle. I was going to delete large chunks as uncited and possibly biased or out of date, but I figured I should see if anyone wants to defend it and reference it, or offer a more accurate account. Annquin (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the phenomenon of people managing to legislate against having to be offended is real, and I — for one — am a dedicated opponent of such laws. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Censorship by private entities[edit]

While traditionally censorship, and indeed by dictionaries, only goverments can censor. However, should the entry at least mention private entities which suppress expression? Such as religious and ideological parties.— Unsigned, by: 62.236.217.68 / talk / contribs

Censorship vs Criticism[edit]

"There is probably an overlap with self-censorship, in that vociferous criticism may lead to self-censorship. But what is required is not an absence of criticism but a free debate in which both sides can put their case and the better argument wins."

That certainly sounds good on paper, but first of all, sometimes it's not the better argument that wins, but the loudest or the most popular argument, even if said arguments are rooted in populist opinions rather than pure logic. And if that still meets your personal definition of "better", then my second point; should it be justifiable for an offended minority to be able to force a change contrary to the artist's vision through sheer social pressure? Finally, I would point out that it's disingenuous to use the term "self-censorship," when oftentimes it's the guy from PR caving on the artist's behalf.

With regards to video games, sometimes changes can be made without compromising the vision. The gamergate types may whine about the dev "giving in", but I see it as a win-win. Some artists are open to new points of view, which may lead to new inspiration. Other times, the artist has a specific vision in mind, in which case his freedom of expression should be respected, even if the vision itself is open to criticism. The line is blurry and situational, which is something both sides seem to overlook at times, but it should be respected. To put it bluntly, I support both the concepts of social progress and creative expression, but feel the latter is more important. You're right in that I don't see many folks on the Left calling for censorship and boycotts, but the debate is worth having. 184.4.186.184 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bible[edit]

While there are a large number of apocryphal religious Jewish and Christian religious texts, very few of them were ever widely regarded as authentic

What's the criteria for authenticity? It's well established that the nominal authors weren't responsible for the texts (being as they were mostly of a legendary nature). --Scherben (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scherben Being a fictionalized entity does make it difficult to write books, or do much of anything for that matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I meant the human 'authors' (Moses, Matthew, Mark etc.), but I get your point; which, incidentally, in tandem with my general uselessness, renders me as very possibly imaginary. 😁 --Scherben (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Varieties of censorship[edit]

A TV series has a fight sequence in which one character boxes another's ears (for a matter of seconds): this is removed from 'the replay version' (to prevent potentially dangerous copycat activities). Does this count as censorship?

What about the calls to remove a scene from Home Alone 2, main characters smoking from 'productions of a certain age' (eg the iconic Isambard Kingdom Brunel in front of ships' chains photo)? Anna Livia (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)