Based on what has come to light, the thread has been closed for now so the situation can be dealt with. Will determine later if the thread can be salvaged/reopened.
Shatner Slams E.U. Censors Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s “To Boldly Go Where No MAN Has Gone Before "
- Thread starter Cpt. MAGA Man
- Start date
Hi all,
So, as it happens, we got our own real-life example in this very thread. This board is a privately-owned business, not an arm of any government. As such, we set certain community standards, and members here can be "punished" for expressing themselves outside of those standards. Expressing support/sympathizing with the Klan is outside of those standards. And, as you can see, the OP is no longer a member here.
Apologies for temporarily closing the thread. The thread was already starting down the road of becoming all about the OP. The issue had been reported, and we just needed to allow for some time for it to be dealt with.
Despite the original premise of the thread being questionable, people had evolved the topic to a discussion around free speech rights and/or reasonable limits on those rights in general. Many people seem to have been taking part, and now that the odious actions of the OP have been taken care of, there's no reason not to let the discussion continue.
I would ask to please keep your posts related to the topic of speech/expression rights. Any comments about the OP or the thread closure may be directed to PM, rather than posted in the thread. Additionally, please continue to be civil to one another, as has been the case so far. Thank you for your efforts in that regard so far. There's no reason we can't have threads that are maybe more contentious in Misc, as long as we follow the guidelines set out for this part of the board.
Thank you. And with that out of the way, the thread is reopened for discussion.
So, as it happens, we got our own real-life example in this very thread. This board is a privately-owned business, not an arm of any government. As such, we set certain community standards, and members here can be "punished" for expressing themselves outside of those standards. Expressing support/sympathizing with the Klan is outside of those standards. And, as you can see, the OP is no longer a member here.
Apologies for temporarily closing the thread. The thread was already starting down the road of becoming all about the OP. The issue had been reported, and we just needed to allow for some time for it to be dealt with.
Despite the original premise of the thread being questionable, people had evolved the topic to a discussion around free speech rights and/or reasonable limits on those rights in general. Many people seem to have been taking part, and now that the odious actions of the OP have been taken care of, there's no reason not to let the discussion continue.
I would ask to please keep your posts related to the topic of speech/expression rights. Any comments about the OP or the thread closure may be directed to PM, rather than posted in the thread. Additionally, please continue to be civil to one another, as has been the case so far. Thank you for your efforts in that regard so far. There's no reason we can't have threads that are maybe more contentious in Misc, as long as we follow the guidelines set out for this part of the board.
Thank you. And with that out of the way, the thread is reopened for discussion.
Thanks.
Okay
While its not the government, the censoring of past media (films books etc) to todays sensibilities is quite.. well.. Nutz..
Sensibilities has and will always change, a good amount of history you just have to look at the church and how they would censor anything that didn't agree with doctrine ( Galileo for Beeps sake!)
Now, if you want to add a "Notice" as some have done, thats fine, (I guess.. If you get so upset from an old book or film that has language you don't like.. ugh..)
But the Censoring or rewriting of media, like has been done with some books, isn't right. Now if you want to do that, fine, you own the work but still have the version that is the original authors intent.. and see how well it sells ( it won''t)
Okay
While its not the government, the censoring of past media (films books etc) to todays sensibilities is quite.. well.. Nutz..
Sensibilities has and will always change, a good amount of history you just have to look at the church and how they would censor anything that didn't agree with doctrine ( Galileo for Beeps sake!)
Now, if you want to add a "Notice" as some have done, thats fine, (I guess.. If you get so upset from an old book or film that has language you don't like.. ugh..)
But the Censoring or rewriting of media, like has been done with some books, isn't right. Now if you want to do that, fine, you own the work but still have the version that is the original authors intent.. and see how well it sells ( it won''t)
One of my big issues with the idea that censorship is good unless it is coming from the government is it doesn't take in account about how much control corporations and the rich people who own them have over government and how much they benefit from government looking the other way with their crimes and of course the corporate handouts.
They are basically business partners working together to make everyone involved either more rich or more powerful. While it's true everyone has free speech, some people clearly have more free speech than others and not because they have better ideas which is kind of the end goal of free speech ideally, but simply because they have more influence and not influenced based on having better ideas but by having more money, power and privilege.
It's basically saying your okay with the rich and 1% having all the power to tell you what you can say and think and if you don't fall in line with what they want, you can be fired or rejected from polite society.
So in the end lots of people fall in line out of fear and then you get a world were people are afraid and walking on eggshells never knowing what the new thing is going to be that you can;t say or think. Then you get a world fully of angry people who simply get sick of people trying to control them. Then it's get to a boiling point where you now have civil war because of it.
They are basically business partners working together to make everyone involved either more rich or more powerful. While it's true everyone has free speech, some people clearly have more free speech than others and not because they have better ideas which is kind of the end goal of free speech ideally, but simply because they have more influence and not influenced based on having better ideas but by having more money, power and privilege.
It's basically saying your okay with the rich and 1% having all the power to tell you what you can say and think and if you don't fall in line with what they want, you can be fired or rejected from polite society.
So in the end lots of people fall in line out of fear and then you get a world were people are afraid and walking on eggshells never knowing what the new thing is going to be that you can;t say or think. Then you get a world fully of angry people who simply get sick of people trying to control them. Then it's get to a boiling point where you now have civil war because of it.
Last edited:
Ford the purpose of simple historical record and for accurate depiction there may be a need to us terms or language that would fall under those categories (see DS9 using the N word as an example) but that is a far cry from someone who just gets a hard on for the KKK spouting these things
I do think though that those depictions of such speech or actions should come with a warning of some sort to alert people to them and explain the context a bit
Often, the people doing the interpreting employ outdated or otherwise inaccurate information. However well-intentioned they may be, their reliance upon disproven information renders their worldview faulty, which means they're certainly not neutral.
Hence the opportunity for a rational debate where both sides calmly and dispassionately present their arguments, and back it up with evidence.
When one side argues from their beliefs to deny the other side of inalienable rights, when those beliefs are bullshit, there's no such thing.Hence the opportunity for a rational debate where both sides calmly and dispassionately present their arguments, and back it up with evidence.
Sometimes you just have one group that wants to oppress another.
This is the sort of thing that's impossible to discuss without specifics.
And sometimes you have nothing of the sort.
This is the sort of thing that deserves its own topic. Preferably with the rules laid out in advance. Discussions of the subject have a way of getting really ugly, really fast... and ending with people getting perma-banned.
This topic is about censorship in general, and I urge that we remain there.
People’s humanity and right to exist and fully participate in society is not something that can be up for “debate”.
While I agree with you that the way this is going is off-topic for this thread, I can tell you that a topic created to argue that a minority group should have their rights restricted, or to otherwise bash said group, is not going to fly, at least here topside.
While I agree with you that the way this is going is off-topic for this thread, I can tell you that a topic created to argue that a minority group should have their rights restricted, or to otherwise bash said group, is not going to fly, at least here topside.
Censorship would not be such a problem in our society if there were not compelling arguments to defend it. Here's a similar justification for an earlier episode from Anerican history. Not quoting anyone, just paraphrasing you.
The sanctity of our great nation, and the right of all Americans to live their lives free of the vile scourge of communism, is not something that can be up for "debate".
At least you're honest about it.
This has not been established, however. Which society? And who’s censoring whom and where? And what in your mind makes it “such a problem”?
Who is defending “censorship”?
But, perhaps most importantly, how the hell is that a response to someone telling you that a group of people’s humanity, right to exist and participate in society cannot be up for “debate”? Are you disagreeing with the statement?
Did I or did I not say that I didn't intend to go there in this topic? This topic is about censorship, the forcible silencing of anyone who presents an opinion contrary to those in power, and the pretexts used to justify it.
Picard (quoting Aaron Satie) said: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." @Avro Arrow made it clear that if I made a speech of that nature, it would be censored, and explained their justification for it. All I did was demonstrate how their argument could be twisted to defend a disgraceful moment in our past history.
You urge...?!
Hey, I was just following up on a post that you had made in-thread. But if, after moderation clarification of what the topic is, you think that further elaboration by yourself of what you meant when you posted that is no longer appropriate, we can move on.
Uh-huh, this topic is about censorship, gotcha. Which is why you dodged all of the questions I asked you about censorship, right?
Wanna try again? You said “censorship is such a problem in our society”, to which I asked: Which society? And who’s censoring whom and where? And what in your mind makes it “such a problem”?
You also said there’s people “defending censorship”, which had me asking: Who is defending “censorship”?
@Avro Arrow did nothing of the sort. A mod on a privately-owned message board telling you that discriminating against a minority group wouldn’t fly and will likely end in a warning is most certainly NOT “censorship”. The same way you calling the police on me when I’m coming into your house to insult your family is not a violation of my “free speech” rights.
And finally, and I’m sure you’re going to find a way to dodge this again, too: Do you agree or disagree that a group of people’s humanity, right to exist and participate in society cannot be up for “debate”? Come on, this should be an easy one.
Excellent! Back to censorship, then.
According to you, it isn't a problem. You are celebrating that in this forum, an opinion that diverges from yours is punishable. And, given that the relevant posts have multiple likes, the concept of censorship (if not the legal act) is clearly embraced.
That's not a question, it's a game of global thermonuclear war. The only winning move is not to play.
Wow, you seem to be really confused, because, again, what you are talking about is most certainly not “censorship”. House rules on a message board that are meant to create a place for civil discussion are not at all like someone forcibly silencing you. For fuck’s sake, you can say whatever the hell you want on here, you just gotta accept that there’s a set of rules, like in most social places. It’s like me claiming you were restricting my rights the moment you are asking me to take my shoes off when I enter your home. Sure, I can just leave my shoes on, but then I would break your established house rules and you would be within your rights to ask me to leave. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Wow, assuming that means you think the right of a group of people to exist is something that can be up for debate … that’s a really ugly way of thinking, I gotta say. You might want to take a moment to really think about just what it is you are telling us about yourself here. I know I’m just some stranger on the internet to you, but genuinely, if this is how you think about people, that’s really not good or healthy or normal.
