Censorship: Difference between revisions
Forgottenman (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Censorship''' is | '''Censorship''' is the suppression of speech that is considered objectionable by the censor. From a [[libertarian]] perspective, the worst forms of censorship are those imposed by [[violence]] or the threat thereof. The reasoning is that when something is made unavailable for public viewing by non-coercive means, anyone else may (assuming that the means are available) make it available for public viewing again. Libertarians would object to a person or organization being forced to provide a venue for the dissemination of ideas he opposes. For example, libertarians believe that a radio station should not be required to give equal airtime to all candidates in an election. Libertarians have pointed out that [[free speech]] can only exist when [[property rights]] are protected.<ref>{{cite book|title=For a New Liberty|author=Rothbard, Murray|quote=The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself; the human right of a free press is the property right to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and to sell them to those who are willing to buy.|url=http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp|chapter=Property Rights and "Human Rights"}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Economic Freedom and Interventionism|author=von Mises, Ludwig|quote=Freedom of the press is a mere blind if the authority controls all printing offices and paper plants.}}</ref> | ||
{{ | Governments have at various times engaged in censorship to suppress obscenity, disclosure of government secrets, and dissident political opinions. In many European countries, Holocaust denial is illegal. Perhaps a particularly insidious form of censorship is that imposed by making companies and organizations liable for the actions of others. For example, in the case of ''Curley v. NAMBLA'', an attempt was made to hold an organization accountable for inciting a person to violence because the criminal happened to be a member of the organization. | ||
Libertarians are sometimes accused of promoting activities by advocating their legalization. The counter-argument is that if there are many activities that are immoral or impractical, but should nonetheless be legal because the harms of prohibition would outweigh the benefits of prohibition. Also, if the arguments against those activities are so strong, then the opponents of those activities should have no trouble refuting any arguments in favor of those activities. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."<ref>''Whitney v. California'', {{ussc|274|357|1927}}</ref> | |||
==Internet censorship== | |||
Pro-NAMBLA pages have been purged from [[Facebook]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/09/29/facebook-begins-purging-pedophile-groups/|title=EXCLUSIVE: Facebook Begins Purging Pages That Refer to Pedophile Group NAMBLA|author=Winter, Jana|date=29 September 2010|publisher=Fox News}}</ref> and [[LiveJournal]] purged 500 discussion groups in an effort to wipe out discussion of paedophilia, rape, and sexual violence.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/01/livejournal_sorry_censor/|title=LiveJournal says sorry for blanket sex-talk censorship|date=1 June 2007|author=Sherriff, Lucy|publisher=The Register}}</ref> Various countries have engaged in Internet censorship; for example, [[China]] instituted a [[Golden Shield]] web filtering program, and [[Australia]] has blocked 10,000 websites.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sites-face-filter/story-fna7dq6e-1111118026039|title=Australian web filter to block 10,000 internet sites|author=Dudley-Nicholson, Jennifer|date=13 November 2008|publisher=Herald Sun}}</ref> [[Iran]] also has imposed many controls on Internet service providers in that country. | |||
==References== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
[[Category:Interventions]] | [[Category:Interventions]] | ||
Revision as of 05:42, 5 September 2012
Censorship is the suppression of speech that is considered objectionable by the censor. From a libertarian perspective, the worst forms of censorship are those imposed by violence or the threat thereof. The reasoning is that when something is made unavailable for public viewing by non-coercive means, anyone else may (assuming that the means are available) make it available for public viewing again. Libertarians would object to a person or organization being forced to provide a venue for the dissemination of ideas he opposes. For example, libertarians believe that a radio station should not be required to give equal airtime to all candidates in an election. Libertarians have pointed out that free speech can only exist when property rights are protected.[1][2]
Governments have at various times engaged in censorship to suppress obscenity, disclosure of government secrets, and dissident political opinions. In many European countries, Holocaust denial is illegal. Perhaps a particularly insidious form of censorship is that imposed by making companies and organizations liable for the actions of others. For example, in the case of Curley v. NAMBLA, an attempt was made to hold an organization accountable for inciting a person to violence because the criminal happened to be a member of the organization.
Libertarians are sometimes accused of promoting activities by advocating their legalization. The counter-argument is that if there are many activities that are immoral or impractical, but should nonetheless be legal because the harms of prohibition would outweigh the benefits of prohibition. Also, if the arguments against those activities are so strong, then the opponents of those activities should have no trouble refuting any arguments in favor of those activities. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."[3]
Internet censorship
Pro-NAMBLA pages have been purged from Facebook[4] and LiveJournal purged 500 discussion groups in an effort to wipe out discussion of paedophilia, rape, and sexual violence.[5] Various countries have engaged in Internet censorship; for example, China instituted a Golden Shield web filtering program, and Australia has blocked 10,000 websites.[6] Iran also has imposed many controls on Internet service providers in that country.
References
- ↑ Rothbard, Murray. "Property Rights and "Human Rights"". For a New Liberty. http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp. "The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself; the human right of a free press is the property right to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and to sell them to those who are willing to buy."
- ↑ von Mises, Ludwig. Economic Freedom and Interventionism. "Freedom of the press is a mere blind if the authority controls all printing offices and paper plants."
- ↑ Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
- ↑ Winter, Jana (29 September 2010). "EXCLUSIVE: Facebook Begins Purging Pages That Refer to Pedophile Group NAMBLA". Fox News.
- ↑ Sherriff, Lucy (1 June 2007). "LiveJournal says sorry for blanket sex-talk censorship". The Register.
- ↑ Dudley-Nicholson, Jennifer (13 November 2008). "Australian web filter to block 10,000 internet sites". Herald Sun.