Censorship by mob rule - Page 11

Angakuk · #**251** 10-03-2007, 03:33 AM

Right, he continues to teach and publish. He just can't wear the hat of an authorized teacher of the church. Hardly an example of censorship.

As for the ostracism angle, again that leads to self-censorship, which I have already covered. Nothing new is added by its inclusion.

godfry n. glad · #**252** 10-03-2007, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Right, he continues to teach and publish. He just can't wear the hat of an authorized teacher of the church. Hardly an example of censorship.

Well, then, we disagree over what constitutes censorship. For a Catholic theologian to not be able to teach Catholic theology sure sounds like censorship to me. Galileo was not forbidden to continue his studies, either. He was just forbidden to say anything contrary to the church. No...that's not censorship. No. Excommunication is not physical coercion, either, but it certainly was effective in shutting up some folks. But then, that's not censorship, either, by your standards. Of course, the Index is not censorship, either, as it did not, and does not, stop the publishing of contrary writings in areas beyond the reach of the church, and no physical coercion could, or can, be brought to bear.

Quote:

As for the ostracism angle, again that leads to self-censorship, which I have already covered. Nothing new is added by its inclusion.

Ah, yes...the blame the victim. Those who are afraid to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses because their family would abandon them...they just have no "cojones". Those amongst the LDS would refrain from speaking out on practices accepted within the church because of the social ostracization....no "cojones". How much physical restraint is used on former Scientologists? Why did so many people follow the Jim Jones line and drink the kool-aid? But, hey, it's not censorship.

Bah, humbug...you can go right ahead and believe that, if you will, but it sure disappoints me.

Angakuk · #**253** 10-03-2007, 04:22 AM

Well, if you are so certain that such things constitute censorship, then tell me, just where would you draw the line between censorship and self-censorship, or do you not believe that self-censorship is even a legitimate concept? Does the responsibility always lie with someone else and never with the one who chooses not to speak?

mickthinks · #**254** 10-15-2007, 02:38 PM

...just where would you draw the line between censorship and self-censorship, or do you not believe that self-censorship is even a legitimate concept?
I don't speak for godfry, of course. For my part, I think self-censorship is a legitimate concept, but in this context it is a confusing one.

When thinking about freedom of speech, there's a world of difference between an individual choosing not to say something for their own reasons (avoiding being hurtful to others, for example) and an authority preventing publication of their remarks. But if an individual chooses not to say something for fear of painful reprisals, they are self-censoring under duress. The former would be choosing to follow one's own moral code. The latter is choosing to comply with the will of the powerful in order to protect oneself. The difference between self-censorship under duress and censorship proper is a technicality with little significance in the issue of freedom of expression, I think.

I believe the mob is able to suppress by psychological force, and the result of that force is often, though not always, self-censorship of an unfree and unhealthy kind.

Mick

Plant Woman · #**255** 10-16-2007, 10:07 AM

Someone do something, DAMN IT!

I censored myself.

Watser? · #**256** 10-16-2007, 10:38 AM

Oh no

Angakuk · #**257** 10-16-2007, 06:25 PM

Suppose that we do make a distinction between self-motivated, self-censorship and self-censorship under duress? In the context of an internet discussion board I am asuming that the duress is all of the psychological variety, that physical intitmidation is not a relevant factor. Where then is the line to be drawn between the ordinary give and take of discussion and the undue application of psychological force? Perhaps more importantly, who gets to draw the line?

Suppose that I post a comment and someone responds by ripping me a new one. On the basis of that single response I feel intimidated and choose to not post again. Is that self-censorship under duress? Maybe it is not just one response. Suppose that a majority of those responding to my post respond negatively. Am I now entitled to consider myself a victim of duress? Suppose every single response to my post is extremely negative. Surely then I can claim to have been subjected to self-censorship under duress.

Imagine a similar scenario where, despite an overwhelming negative response, I don't censor myself, but continue to post my upopular opinion. In such a case, as I have continued to post, I have rather obviously not been subjected to self-censorship under duress.

Compare the two scenarios. Where do they differ? The nature of the response has been the same in both cases. The only discernable difference is in the behavior of the original poster. godfry is going to call this blaming the victim. I call it accepting responsibility for our own choices, and I call it self-censorship, plain and simple.

mickthinks · #**258** 10-17-2007, 12:44 AM

Where then is the line to be drawn between the ordinary give and take of discussion and the undue application of psychological force? Perhaps more importantly, who gets to draw the line?
I don't claim to have answers to either of these questions. Nor can I tell you how to draw the line between teasing and bullying, or between reasonable and unreasonable force, or even between hot and cold, or high and low, or near and far. I am not sure what point you are arguing here.

I have rather obviously not been subjected to self-censorship under duress.
You have been subjected to pressure. When that kind of pressure is enough to induce you to censor yourself then your opinion has been suppressed. And although it may not be sufficient to suppress your opinion, it may still succeed in suppressing the opinion of others.

Mick

Angakuk · #**259** 10-17-2007, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Where then is the line to be drawn between the ordinary give and take of discussion and the undue application of psychological force? Perhaps more importantly, who gets to draw the line?
I don't claim to have answers to either of these questions. Nor can I tell you how to draw the line between teasing and bullying, or between reasonable and unreasonable force, or even between hot and cold, or high and low, or near and far. I am not sure what point you are arguing here.

The point I am making is that the so called line between self-censorship and self-censorship under duress is wholly subjective. I depends upon what the individual considers to be intolerable and that can't be calclulated by anybody else. The only way, within the context of a discussion board, to ensure that no one is ever subjected to a level of psychological pressure that they consider to be intolerable would be to eliminate any negative and critical responses alltogether. Otherwise, you know, somebody might get their feelings hurt and feel constrained to not post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I have rather obviously not been subjected to self-censorship under duress.
You have been subjected to pressure. When that kind of pressure is enough to induce you to censor yourself then your opinion has been suppressed. And although it may not be sufficient to suppress your opinion, it may still succeed in suppressing the opinion of others.

The point is that this suppression of opinion is not an act of suppression by an external agency. It is an act of self-suppression that is a result of internalizing an external force. One is no more forced to stop posting one's opinion because psychological or emotional pressure has been brought to bear on one, than one is forced to take shelter in the house because the wind is blowing outside. In both cases we are talking about an act of individual choice in response to some external condition. The moment you say that you have no choice is the very moment that you surrender the field.

mickthinks · #**260** 10-20-2007, 01:48 AM

the so called line between self-censorship and self-censorship under duress is wholly subjective.
Just because boundaries aren't clear doesn't mean there's no distinction to be made. I hoped the examples I gave of other lines I can't tell you how to draw would make this clear; for example, I think we can agree that the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable force is a real and important one in law, even though there are cases in which the distinction is not obvious and in which the judgment is a purely subjective one. Likewise the difference between a hot bath and a cold bath is not an illusion, even though we may disagree on the temperature of 'tepid'.

The only way, within the context of a discussion board, to ensure that no one is ever subjected to a level of psychological pressure that they consider to be intolerable would be to eliminate any negative and critical responses alltogether.
Maybe, but we aren't yet disputing with each other about the viability or desirability of an anti-suppression policy. We are still disputing whether psychological pressure can inhibit expression. I think it can and I think it does.

One is no more forced to stop posting one's opinion because psychological or emotional pressure has been brought to bear on one, than one is forced to take shelter in the house because the wind is blowing outside.
No more than one is forced to shelter inside the monastery because the army is shooting at the monks in the street. I'd still say the Burmese military are suppressing the protests. The idea that those monks who are discouraged from protesting by the prospect of getting shot are 'self-suppressing' is an odd one. Yet it seems to be where your "internalizing an external force" argument must lead you.

Mick

Angakuk · #**261** 10-21-2007, 01:12 AM

The question of suppression, whether of action or speech, is ultimately reducible to a matter of individual choice. As long as one is in the position to choose whether or not to speak or act, then one's freedom to speak or act has not been successfully suppressed. The moment that one is no longer free to choose is the moment at which one's speech or action is either suppressed or compelled. The Burmese monk who risks death or imprisonment by stepping out of the monastery gate is, in so doing, exercising choice and is, to that extent, still free and unsuppressed. The moment he is killed or imprisoned is the moment that he ceases to be free to choose to speak or act. That same monk, if he is using the internet or a cell phone to communicate his message to the outside world, has had his speech suppressed or censored if his access to those means of communication has been blocked either by incarceration or termination of service. That is, he has been silenced, not by intimidation, but by concrete physical action. That same monk, if he chooses to respond to intimidation and threat by not speaking or acting is, by that choice, complicit in the act of suppression or censorship. That is, he has engaged in act of self-suppression or self-censorship, regardless of how reasonable such a choice may be.

The same principle applies to discussion boards. If a poster has been banned or had posts deleted, then that poster has been censored and his/her speech has been suppressed, in that particular venue. The poster who stops posting, as a response to intimidation and abuse, has engaged in an act of self-censorship. Regardless of how reasonable such a choice may be, it is still an individual choice. The poster could have chosen differently.

It could be argued that a particular poster, given his/her particular psychological/emotional make up, could not have chosen differently. I have no answer to that except to note that such a proposition makes hash out of any theory of personal responsibility.

I am not denying that psychological pressure is real pressure. As real as physical force. Nor am I denying that it is possible to bring such pressure to bear on an individual in the course of an internet discussion. However, I reject entirely the notion that such pressure somehow absolves the individual of responsibility for his/her choices. The claim that the force of social opprobrium, as frequently experienced on internet discussion boards, constitutes censorship or suppression of speech amounts to nothing other than an attempt to shift responsibility away from the individual and onto the group.

Does this imply that the group bears no responsibility for its actions? Hardly. A group is composed of individuals. Each individual bears responsibility for his/her actions. To the extent that individuals, by their actions, contribute to the creation of a climate of hostility and intimidation those individuals are complicit in the resulting act of self-censorship. An internet discussion board is a community. When any one member of that community fails to thrive the community, as a community, is damaged and diminished.

Nevertheless, the bottom line remains one of personal responsibility for individual choices. If I choose not to speak, for whatever reasons, I have censored myself. If I speak and someone prevents my words from being heard or seen, then I have been censored.

mickthinks · #**262** 10-26-2007, 04:11 PM

The question of suppression, whether of action or speech, is ultimately reducible to a matter of individual choice. Who says so, or do we have to take this on trust? Because I think I disagree.

As long as one is in the position to choose whether or not to speak or act, then one's freedom to speak or act has not been successfully suppressed (my emphasis)

I agree. But perhaps one of the reasons why moral heroes are often so bitterly criticised is because we feel they make us look bad in comparison. For example, Paul Schneider was not actually 'censored' by lethal injection until 1939. That doesn't mean that he had not been subjected to increasing NAZI suppression from 1934 onwards. According to your argument, if I understand it correctly, blaming the NAZIs for attempts to silence him with threats and beatings is 'shifting responsibility', and if he had succumbed to the pressure and stopped speaking out, it would have been his own decision with no one else to blame.

Needless to say, that isn't the way I see it.

However, I reject entirely the notion that such pressure somehow absolves the individual of responsibility for his/her choices. The claim that the force of social opprobrium, as frequently experienced on internet discussion boards, constitutes censorship or suppression of speech amounts to nothing other than an attempt to shift responsibility away from the individual and onto the group.

Yes, absolution for one's actions, even under coercion, is a separate issue. I agree that if we all had moral strength like Schneider's then a mere message board mob would not have any power to suppress ideas and opinions.

But since there are plenty of people who would rather keep silent than risk being attacked in the way that the mob has attacked some here, it follows that the mob does have the power to suppress opinions, and it is you, I think, who is trying to shift that responsibility away from where it belongs.

Mick

Angakuk · #**263** 10-27-2007, 04:19 AM

Did you miss the part where I acknowledged that those who apply such pressure are complicit in the act of self-censorship?

In any case, I am much to intimidated to pursue this argument any further.

mickthinks · #**264** 11-23-2007, 07:36 PM

Did you miss the part where I acknowledged that those who apply such pressure are complicit in the act of self-censorship?
No, but I missed the part where you agreed that that is suppression and the mob does it.

In any case, I am much to intimidated to pursue this argument any further. And yet I have threatened you with nothing more than a convincing argument. I guess that means you are convinced? :hm:

Mick

mickthinks · #**265** 11-27-2007, 03:51 PM

livius said

It's one to respond to a strongly-worded statement with ire, and another to get on someone's case just because they've engendered ire in other topics. [...] I think the principle of free speech is better served by self-censorship so the people who wish to have a discussion on topic x don't find themselves mired in leftover hostility from topic y.

I agree that much (though not all) mob suppression would be avoided if those who were inclined towards it did not carry hostility over from thread to thread. But if this is not just wishful thinking, the community has to adopt it as a shared agenda and promote it. I haven't seen any discussion in any forum ever where such a voluntary and co-operative scheme was seriously considered without being derailed by the mob or being deemed unnecessary by the moderators. I reckon :ff:

is the only forum where such a self-governing culture might be established, but it would need commitment and leadership.

Is it not worth a try? :idea2:

Mick

mickthinks · #**266** 12-03-2007, 03:16 PM

Dingfod said

How much of a mob mentality can there even be on an online message board? We're just a collection of individuals, each expressing our thoughts.

I reckon a mob mentality can manifest in a web community as fully as in RL even though, obviously, it cannot express itself in all the same ways (such as physical violence).

I believe that people who have a status in a community which depends on them behaving sociably and keeping a tight rein on their aggression, will sometimes relish the opportunity to release their darker nature by joining in an attack on a safe target. The target is socially 'safe' if there is a consensus that he or she is deserving of ill-treatment. The consensus engenders a mob mentality by licensing all those individuals who enjoy a conflict but normally feel restrained by social conventions, to let rip together.

It is easy to see why these people will not welcome a discussion of whether the target has been fairly chosen or whether the hostility is proportionate, or indeed any ethical analysis of their behaviour at all. What is maybe not so easy to understand is why those observing passively on the sidelines are often unwilling to condemn the mob behaviour, and can instead sometimes go to great lengths producing rationalisations to defend it.

Mick

ShottleBop · #**267** 12-03-2007, 04:07 PM

Can you give a recent example on this board of what you consider to have been mob behavior?

mickthinks · #**268** 12-04-2007, 05:52 PM

I think this thread is an example illustrating some, though not all, of the features of mob behaviour.

ZEZOZE · #**269** 12-04-2007, 05:59 PM

you could have come up with better examples than your own.

i agree with you and Ang on this. there is censorship by mob rule here. there are many things i have posted elsewhere that i wanted to post here, but just figured i would be attacked and called a stoner, etc...

in the end, it is my fault for not having enough balls to stand up to a mob that can't hurt me unless i allow it.

Watser? · #**270** 12-04-2007, 06:20 PM

If there's any censorship here, it's do-it-yourself censorship.

Every loon is allowed to say anything he wants. Nobody is forced to listen to them though. Personally I'm not watching the loony channel.

ZEZOZE · #**271** 12-04-2007, 06:24 PM

you, watser, are simply a goon in a mob of angry, social misfits.

you are also partially correct.

Sock Puppet · #**272** 12-04-2007, 06:35 PM

And you, Michael, continue to be the Platonic ideal of everything you rail against. And more than partially full of shit.

ZEZOZE · #**273** 12-04-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

And you, Michael, continue to be the Platonic ideal of everything you rail against.

not always, but yes...

btw...what am i railing against here? i simply made a comment. go browse my posts and quote me where i am railing. you'll find it happens a lot less than i am accused of...there is a reason my statements get so blown out of proportion. guess i hit home...

naw....couldn't be, could it, Sock Puppet?

Sock Puppet · #**274** 12-04-2007, 06:43 PM

No, and I'm not going to do a search on your posts. Get your attention elsewhere.

D. Scarlatti · #**275** 12-04-2007, 06:54 PM

Mick's link ironically makes reference to Hugo's board, from whence Mick was given the bum's rush. Ironic, because Mick is complaining about this board, where nobody has ever been censored, and it's damn nigh impossible to be banned from.

Now would somebody get out the world's smallest violin, and play a sad melody for Michael, so the ruling mob can shed its tears en masse for all the THC-addled nonsense he's decided not to post.