Along with the increasing amount of comments we receive, we also get an ever increasing number of comments that are never published on the site and are rather promptly deleted. In other words, Yes to Freedom does “censor” certain comments from an internal point of view. As we are an organisation that claims to fight for absolute freedom of speech, explaining the reasons behind such moderation is becoming pressing.
We do not – and will never – delete any comments that are genuinely against our goals and ideals. We believe that it is preferable to respond to these comments in a sincere and polite fashion. However, very few comments of that kind are written in response to our articles. What we do receive, however, are comments that disagree with the means we chose to attain our goals; we get one of these every few weeks. Invariably, such comments vilify Yes to Freedom by criticising its lack of “offensive action” and overall peaceful approach. Some even explicitly request that we hack the websites of organisations that hold views conflicting with ours!
I wish to make it clear once and for all that we will not bother to publish comments of that kind on this blog, let alone write answers to them. Anyone who writes one understands neither the purpose nor the nature of Yes to Freedom. We are in favour of free speech, not inherently against those who are not, and we respect these opponents of ours. And most importantly, we hold the firm belief that our position on these matters will prevail by the use of reason alone – we refuse categorically to let ourselves be swayed by anger, indignation, etc.
Finally, on the issue of “censorship” within a pro-free-speech organisation, the most appropriate answer I can find is also the only one from a purely logical standpoint. That is, this is not an issue for one who understands the concept of “free speech”. That ideology in no way implies one’s right to impede on someone else’s privacy and say anything anywhere, and that we could never say enough. Freedom of expression – in its socio-political meaning which we are using for clarity – only refers to speech in one’s own privacy and in State-governed space. Thus, we fully agree with the right of individuals, corporations and organisations (including ourselves) to choose the content they produce and display.
That is not to be frowned upon from a purely pro-free-speech point of view.
Well said!
well some quality control is needed.It is important that you make this site for what it really stands for.
“Freedom of expression – in its socio-political meaning which we are using for clarity – only refers to speech in one’s own privacy and in State-governed space.”
What makes the State special as an agent of censorship?
If, for instance, all the editors of major news organizations agreed to hide or not publish anything pertaining to one topic, wouldn’t that effectively remove it from public view? Wouldn’t that leave most citizens equally ignorant of it, just as if the State had censored it? Perhaps that’s a silly example, but my point is: why does the means matter?
What quality is intrinsic to governmental action that makes its censorship bad, while other means of attaining the same results are not bad?
@ moritheil,
Good question. I believe that it is worth spending a bit of my time to address this issue.
What is so particular about the State is first that its goal is to represent the interests of the population as a whole and not of certain individuals; incidentally it holds the power to legislate, and thus to punish “deviants”. In other words, choosing not to mention certain topics to promote ignorance is one thing (and is thoroughly done nowadays), punishing those that mention these topics is another.
Allow me to draw a parallel between this fundamental distinction and one’s own life. You choose what you wish to say and what you wish to “censor” from your own speech, regardless of the reasons. Denying this right would be tantamount to contradicting the very basis of free speech. That is also the case for organisations, which are but a group of individuals.
Censorship is not problematic on practical grounds as long as it doesn’t involve punishment, which only governments and public institutions are allowed to enact. Ethical issues do remain for purely prohibitive censorship, but again that is only the case for public institutions and governments. And that is not to mention that no matter what, any broadcasting institution, for example, will have to select some content while rejecting other.
You want to wack off to all types child pornography without the government telling you otherwise.
How about telling the truth for once?
I published the comment by “The Sandwich” to illustrate precisely the kind of trolling we get at Yes To Freedom. Normally this comment, which is devoid of logic and reason and makes ignorant assumptions about the membership and the goals of the group, would never “cut the mustard.” Some people are unable to figure out that there’s a difference between “wacking off to all types child pornography” and not wanting the government to put people in jail just because a drawing on a piece of paper offends someone. Classic troll, and one that really belongs under a bridge.
HINT: WRITE UNSOURCED IDIOTIC COMMENTS LIKE “THE SANDWICH,” GET MODERATED INTO THE COSMIC TRASH CAN. Thanks in advance to all future commentators for respecting the intelligence of others!
@moritheil:
First and foremost, the problem with government is that its actions are mostly out of control of the people. There is no way to put economic pressure on the government to force it to do something you want, unlike a private organization. History has proven that, while government might respond to massive citizen outcries to some limited extent, the only true power a citizen has to fix a bad decision made by the government is to vote in new people–something which rarely happens with enough strength to actually bring about the required change.
Second, the government has something that no private entity has: police powers. If News Corp. (owner of Fox News among many other media outlets in the US) were to decide to push the idea that people with loud mufflers should be put in jail for a year, they can spout that they think it should happen all day long, but they have no power to put someone in jail for having a loud muffler on their motor vehicle. The government, however, has absolute power to enforce anything that they decide should be law, and they are very quick and efficient in said enforcement actions when even the smallest infractions come to their attention.
Therefore, the answer to your question about the intrinsic quality of government that makes its censorship actions “bad” is this: the government has the ability to put you in jail for breaching the specific moral choices that they force on you through censorship, and they can do so for very long periods of time. Fox News can’t really destroy your life, because you can always publicly fight back; the government can take your entire life away from you in a matter of hours and ruin everything you’ve ever worked for, even for something as silly as not making the same moral choices as them. Constitutions are a nuisance to lawmakers, because they serve to reduce their power. However, any Constitution is just a piece of paper if we don’t stand up and fight for the rights that it reminds those lawmakers are ours to do with as we please.
Well said, Ghandi would be proud of your nonviolent approach.
I understand what you’re saying, as I administrate and moderate on a few forums which enforce freedom of speech upon all it’s mods and admins. Do you allow blatant trolling in the name of free speech? What if the forum is in an uproar over someone who (whilst being a complete and total dick to all the other members) is completely serious about it? You have to make some tough decisions on what exactly deserves to be called ‘speech’ and not just mindless waffle, trolling and people being idiots.
Also, directed at the paedophile comment chain: I myself am a paedophile (more accurately paedosexual). I’m also a phebosexual (during puberty, as opposed to before it). I can understand why child porn is censored. I dearly wish it wasn’t, but it is. I accept that. Your (the troll’s) opinion that all paedophiles are child-raping monsters is largely innaccurate, and to the contrary, the majority of paedophiles are either too scared shitless or have too great a moral compass (set to S for society amirite) to harm a child (sexually, at least).
In conclusion, free speech and freedom of expression are incredibly controversial topics to discuss due to the nature of things that can be said and/or expressed, thank you and good day.
Well thought-out and to the point. A movement like this has the chance to turn forced morality from fail into win.