If [a writing] be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose.
-Thomas Jefferson
To censor or not to censor...
by Elsewhere 30 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
bitter mango
excellent!!
-
Double Edge
Tommy J. said a mouthful! hear, hear!!!
-
Simon
Fine words and I agree with them ... up to a point (awe, you knew I was going to say that didn't you?!)
I think it assumes that people have some sense and level of decency that is sadly lacking in a few people.
Would I want to hear, never mind refute, the ideas of a pedophile and why they thought sex with children was acceptable?
There are boundaries - even with freedom.
-
Simon
having said that ... as long as the ideas have a place (even if we disagree with them) then providing the peopel involved can discuss the ideas and not resort to personal attacks then it's a good statement.
-
Trauma_Hound
Simon well in the US that is actually protected speech, pictures are not.
-
Elsewhere
Simon, I would have to disagree. Are we not rational beings capable of discerning that pedophilia is in fact a wrong?
(More of the great Tommy J)
I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. -- Thomas Jefferson
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl229.htm
I'd like to take a good long look at your foot before giving you that kind of authority.
-
Simon
It may be protected but surely there are controls over when and where it can be said? In the UK for instance, that would not be allowed on daytime TV.
-
ThiChi
Simon:
With respect, the example you give is extreme. I have never once read a post that espouses what you have given as an example. However, I have seen persons removed for a far less offence.
Are the boundaries applied fairly in the area of differing viewpoints? The word "Troll" is just as problematic as "Apostate" or "Molester Supporter" (just because you happen to be a JW.) Or labeling someone "weak minded."
One reply is that "its Simons board, he can do what he wants." True. But at what cost? The Dubs claim that same authority. "If you dont like it, leave." I hope in your efforts, you will hold to the higher ground as a free thinker. (Hey, the Darth thing was funny....).
Edited by - thichi on 19 August 2002 17:17:3
-
Jesus Christ
Wow, so by freedom of speech (and by extension expression) that means someone could do what they like to prove that rubbing poo on your face is a good thing and they shouldn't be stopped. Yep, totally unrestricted freedom is such a great thing..........