Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

they'll do whatever they're asked.

Ouch, just ouch. Another win for the man. I guess sometimes it's easy to forget that in the end, Google is a publically traded company. Its primary motivation is to make cash, and I'm sure they're making some hot business deals with the Chinese economic powerhouse.

Not cool on Google's half. This seems to be a different google than the one that told our government to shove it.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

...or the same one motivated by profits. They saw more money to be made in America with their refusal.

I don't know the laws in China, but I am pretty sure that what google did was based on that. Over here in the states, we have a freedom of speech protected by our constitution. Google was standing up for what it deemed a violation of that right.

They did this because they could do it and still continue to operate legally over here. I bet if they were to do something like that over in China, they would be asked "politely" to leave. (sarcasm implied).

_________________

Aggreed, what they did was good for the chineese people. if they want to know about the stuff we got, they can go to mongolia and use their servers.

_________________

Wait, how was assisting government mind control for the good of the Chinese?

This is odd, because I saw a Slashdot article not too long ago about how the Chineese goverment blocked out Wikipedia for the same reasons. I guess they don't want anyone seeing anything about Tiananmen Square.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

That never actually happened. It was American Propaganda!! [/very obvious sarcasm]

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I hope you were joking becuse that is not at all what I am saying. Any type of censorship is harmful, regardless of intent.

All I was saying was it is well within google's rights to do what they are doing. Do I agree with them morally, no. But do I agree with them from a business vantage, absolutely. They wouldn't be in China otherwise... how many billion potential "customers" are they alienating by not going there?

_________________

What they could do is merely stop the .com address from redirecting. Though nonetheless anyone smart enough can use another "country's" google to find what they want.

I do believe in censorship to an extent, but when you deny people who want information that should be free that information, it goes beyond that.

_________________
CLOCK

Censorship to what extent?

Censorship as in genunely disturbing stuff flashing up on screen in day-time not being allowed to happen, genuinely. I also believe that to an extent, people like the ITC(now taken over by ofcom) who filter out the Pat Robertsons from the UK Media can be beneficial.

_________________
CLOCK

I don't like the idea of censorship. Pat Robertson DOES bother me, but, when you start telling people what they can see and hear, you're telling others that censorship is ok. While that's fine when people you agree with are in power, what happens someone you disagree with takes over?

I don't like censorship, mainly because, when you take away someone's right to say something, you're opening the floodgates to allow others to tell you what you can or can't say.

I do realize that this is a "slippery slope" argument, but there are times when I doubt whether that is a fallacy or not.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

It is a fallacy technically, but still an important point to be wary of even if you can't use it as solid evidence in a debate.
Slippery Slopes are fallacies only when you can't prove the true slippery properties of said slope - relevant historical backing can help this.
However, as it has been tried and tested in britain for decades by now, I can safely say it hasn't opened the floodgates for anything. People are backlashing against P.C. enough as it is - can you really imagine it getting much heftier?

The U.S. is a very different place to Britian but only because it's "allowed" to be. I doubt it would really upset people much if Pat Robertson couldnt' spread his hate - just that the magical omnipresent "Freedom of speech" has been broken.

Pat Robertson is not using Free Speech in the sense that the founding fathers foresaw it.

He is using his power to, essentially, make life for a minority much more difficult. He and others like him are holding back social progress as much as he can. You really do have to draw a line somewhere - his "freedom to speech" is being used to play down the freedom of speech of others, by further extroditing them from "normal" society. This is an unfair loophole.

The backlash is why most slippery slope arguments are ultimately proved wrong.

_________________
CLOCK

The beauty of free speech is that those who are opposed to Robertson are just as free to voice their own opinion.

I agree with Mikes! and StrongRad here. Censorship in any form is detrimental to the health of a society. It becomes especially relevant when you are talking about the extremists... on either side. There are so many times that I want to tell the Pat Robertsons or the Jesse Jacksons to shut up (and often I do, but behind the closed windows of my car, or in the confines of my basement), but does that mean I think we should have laws telling them what they can or can't say?

That sounds like a rather conservative ideal if you were to ask me. I would venture to say that it is a neo-conservative ideal. One might even go so far as to toss in Godwin's Law here.

I suppose I could take this moment to re-reiterate my sentiments about Google's decision. As a business I think they are making the exact right decision. Unless they are prepared to lead a revolution (over-throwing the current political regime). From a moral standpoint, I don't agree. I think free speech should be open to everybody. I just don't think google is ready to take on the political powers that run China... /shrug

_________________

I just thought of another bad side-effect of censorship. It CAN lend credibility to the censored.

"I have ideas that would upset 'the man's' balance, so he has to keep me down!"

Just look at Tiananmen Square. Had the government allowed the students to demonstate, their movement wouldn't have gotten anywhere. The Chinese government's unwillingness to allow the students to speak showed they had something to hide.

Of course, they were protesting some very valid points, but even full blown, twelve-cylinder wack-a-loons like Alex Jones would probably use the "They're keeping me down" argument . That, and (in the US, anyway) the first amendmant pretty much says "no" to censorship. It's just a dangerous idea.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Then why is it that you have people like Pat Robertson in their place, but no pro-gay equivillent? Tell me that. Because nobody stepped up? I doubt it. Or because, perhaps, they really aren't just as free due to the fact that it's more socially acceptable to be a homophobe than a homosexual. Current government law should help counteract social problems, not leave them to their own devises. It can be adjusted when needed. We are most certainly not ready as a world culture for true, full free speech. Minority protection comes before Johnny mouthing off about how much he hates anal sex and wants to smash everyone who does it.



Censorship of drugs and sex is a neo-conservative ideal(but not necessarily, ironically, violence), but censorship of hate speech is most certainly not.

I don't know why you're talking about all these things that it will open the gate to, when it's been tried and tested for years in countries like Britain and clearly it's not the case. The "stop oppressing me" argument is probably the only reason not to, and we'd probably see that in the U.S., but there's only so long you can keep that up. These people, unlike the minorities they speak out against, aren't used to having their "rights" taken from them. They are only "crusaders" when they are given their opportunities on a platter.

Censorship of hate speech isn't quite the same as censorship of information or actual views or opinions that aren't formed out of prejudice. I'm sorry, but I'll say it straight out now, moral relatvism is a pile of rubbish. Some things are bad no matter what. Cold blooded murder will never be truly accepted by any society.

When you censor hate speech, as much as they pretend otherwise, people know darn well why it's happening and it's their own fault for abusing that right.

The longer media is openly allowed to spread hate towards homosexuals, the harder the struggle will be for homosexuals to throw off those oppressing shackles.

This kind of censorship is different because it's disallowing people to form a political view.

Most religious right/some neo-con opinions on things like this are not in fact opinions but claims, many of which have been proven wrong. The reason they call their claim an opinion or belief is so they can continue holding it even after all likelyness suggests that they are dead wrong.
For instance, many neo-cons would hold the view that homosexuality is strongly linked to paedophilia, and that most paedophiles are homosexual. This is a claim. They past this off as an "opinion", however, it has been since . Yet many continue to "believe" this.

This is one of the big reasons liberal vs. far right arguments get so annoying, along with the way that neo-cons often say "Well you prove ME wrong!" and reflect arguments instead of constructing their own. Certain things you simply *can't* use in a debate or to form serious political views.

Homosexuality is a quality, not a view or opinion. Speaking out against it is hate talk, and anyone holding this "opinion" is not holding a political view, but a prejudice. Hate talk can be defined, not absolutely, but for the sake of any laws that may be passed, "discrimination or potentially volatile statements against a group of people based on quality in an attempt to rally the masses against them, or outright heavy disregard for the quality itself, attempting to rally the masses against the quality itself, possibly having the same result when the quality is inherently neither illegal nor destructive".

Alrgiht, it's a bit long, but that gets it down to a T.

Since when were prejudices meant to be political views, anyway?

Pat Robertson is twisting the media, twisting free speech. He is not just expressing an opinion, but actively trying to rally people against homosexuality. And rallying is an action, certainly not mere "free speech".

The bottom line is that homophobia is ultimately harmful and destructive, that it can be filtered to an extent without harming "free speech" as a whole, and that it should be done in the U.S. as soon as possible.

_________________
CLOCK

The thing is, filtering "hate speech" would harm free speech.

Free speech isn't speech you agree with, Rose. I know, I know, it'd be nice if it was, but it isn't. Free speech isn't about only allowing those things that you don't view as harmful, either.

Free speech is just that. Free.

It doesn't have to be intelligent.

Some of the things you say about conservatives are down right hateful, but I doubt you'd call it hate speech.

Like I said earlier, although I do sometimes view it as a fallacy, "slippery slope" is something you have to watch out for. If censorship is not held in check (and if it's allowed, it's not being held in check), you eventually lose other rights, too.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Honey, "The thing is" doesn't cut it. I used real world examples and set down an exact definition of hate speech. You've done squat.

It's nothing to do with "speech I don't agree with", and you know it. It's to do with speech that is inherently nothing but harmless, and abuse of hate speech to rally people against a minority.

Free speech isn't just that. Even as it is Free Speech is somewhat controlled and limited. That isn't an argument against a badly needed limit, though.

The future of several minorities on the line here. We can't afford to have people like you who can only come up with "The thing is" as their defense. You need to be able to show exactly why filtering hate speech is damaging, and you'll have a tough time since well, it's been done, and it isn't.



No, because you're trying to exageratte my argument to put it on a level with fundie nuts.

You'll notice that I specifically said a quality. Conservatism isn't a quality, it's a political view, and I am most certainly nowhere near as hateful as big shot homophobes, or even as much as Ann Coulter is towards liberals.

Your race is a quality. Your sexuality is a quality. Your gender is a quality. What political party you support is not a quality, but a view.



Unfortunately, that's pure slippery slope as there are already several similiar "limiting" laws that have not encouraged knock ons, and censorship is active in countries like Britian, and for the most part, works. It doesnt' filter political views, only discriminative comments against people of a particular harmless(as demonstrated by the relevant experts) quality.

I don't *like* having to censors things at all. But it is necessary to forward social progress and minorities and it is apparent you are putting your own perogative in front of that. I don't like censorship, but I put what it necessary for people like me before my own "What I would likes".

_________________
CLOCK

Wow. Rose turned a thread about google to a brief talk of Homophobia. No Rose, there is no such thing as "Controlled and Limited" free speech. That isn't free speech. The exact opposite. Even if speech is so foul, so hurtful, so bigoted that every one agrees that it is completely wrong, there is still free speech. Now, the bottom line is, your idea of free speech is not free speech. Look it up in the dictionary.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

But whatever it is, it works. And Pat Roberstons don't get to rally their little armies.

You've been raised on the mantra of "free speech" so heavily you don't get that sometimes other things take preference. Most arguments against censorship of hate speech are pure slippery slope. I do not wish to hear them again.

_________________
CLOCK

Yes. I have been raised on the mantra of free speech. It's one of the many freedoms we enjoy as Americans. NOTHING is more important than freedom.

I refuse to give up my free speech just because someone is saying something I don't like. If you tell someone they can't say something, then you should expect someone to tell you that you can't say something.

It IS a slippery slope.

Banning hate speech is harmful because it is against the First Amendment.


It doesn't say

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Awesome. thanks strongrad, i wouldof just called her A Female Dog, but what you said says it best. thank you.

_________________

That would have gotten you in trouble there, COLA. It'd been uncalled for, too.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Luckily you got to it before i did.

_________________

And can you prove a law going against the First Amendment is harmful for 100% definite? There are laws made against the first ammendment, but they are harmful since they are for the government and not the people.

You as a culture NEED to make certain changes to your core in order to socially progress. The problem with your constitution is that when it was written, they didn't forsee this kind of lobbying and rallying. Using "conservatism" as your argument doesn't cut it. If something needs to be changed in order to protect people, it needs to be changed. Once the problem has seemingly died down, it can be reppealled.

You still haven't shown anything. You've just pointed out numerous times that what I'm saying is against your ideals. You haven't shown how limiting hate speech is harmful, yet I have show how it isn't. Unless you're going to post something solid, some statistics, or reference to somewhere where it did go entirely wrong, then this case is closed.

_________________
CLOCK

listen... yeah, speech can hurt people, But do you know why? its because people Cant Realize that they have a voice and can tell whoever is saying what someone doesnt like to Go Shove it. Much like what all of us have said to you because of your bashings against the United States. It seems like you are using your "So-cal" right to free speech saying that we cant use our Right to Free speech to say something against a Minority. but you know what? we can say what we want about a Minority without the fear of prosecution. And you know what? that minority can say something back. without free speech, we wouldnt be able to Vote or debate or have an inteligent disscussion,(much like the once we had for the week or two that you were gone). without free speech, we cant say what we like or disslike, we wont be able to vote to say who we want or dont want, or what we dont like to be in our state. because of our freedom to say what we think, WE ARE THE FREEST OF FREE

_________________

Yeah, just like the Hulk is free to beat up Woody Allen, but you know what? Woody Allen can fight back.

I think you miss the point of a "minority" entirely...

_________________
CLOCK