censorship
July 5, 2005 1:58 PM Subscribe
I have to discuss this in class tonight... can anybody give me a hand.... ?
"The freedom of the individual depends on the freedom of everyone."
"The freedom to disagree discourages censorship."
Response by poster: My question is... what does this mean?
"The freedom of the individual depends on the freedom of everyone." "The freedom to disagree discourages censorship."
posted by bamassippi at 2:11 PM on July 5, 2005
"The freedom of the individual depends on the freedom of everyone." "The freedom to disagree discourages censorship."
posted by bamassippi at 2:11 PM on July 5, 2005
"The freedom to disagree discourages censorship."
This strikes me as a variation on "The solution hate speech is not censorship but more speech." In other words, don't silence the bigots. Drown them out with words of nobler intent.
posted by bradlands at 2:24 PM on July 5, 2005
This strikes me as a variation on "The solution hate speech is not censorship but more speech." In other words, don't silence the bigots. Drown them out with words of nobler intent.
posted by bradlands at 2:24 PM on July 5, 2005
The first basically means that freedom is an all or nothing proprosition. You can't make some groups or people more or less free than others without a) starting down a slippery slope b) impinging on the freedoms of the first group to become part of the second group without giving up their freedoms.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:29 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by jacquilynne at 2:29 PM on July 5, 2005
I would go so far as to say the freedom to disagree is the very antithesis of censorship. Censoring, by its very nature, exists not to protect people from harmful messages but from messages that go against the grain of what the majority - or at least the government - wants people to hear. It is the idea that if you block out anything you dislike/disagree with from reaching others, it will somehow cease it exist. It stagnates speech itself, as well as the sharing of new ideas. It blocks societal progress.
posted by mystyk at 2:41 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by mystyk at 2:41 PM on July 5, 2005
I think the first quote is saying that no one can be free unless everyone is free. Can we, as Americans, claim to be free when the government is taking steps to limit the freedoms of others? At what point does that stop? If we continue to allow them to say that a certain group of people (say, the Muslims being held at Guantanamo Bay) are deserving of less rights and less freedoms than others, then can we really rest lightly and assume that they will stop with foreign nationals? What if they decide that certain groups of Americans pose a serious threat and throw them in cells at Gitmo as well? By denying those people freedom, we are denying freedom to ourselves. Let me start with a quote from Thomas Jefferson that you may have heard before:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights. Almost every one of those amendments is based on the principal that only by protecting the rights of individuals can we protect the rights of society. The First: the freedom of religion, speech, and free association. The Fourth: the freedom "people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". The Fifth: the freedom against self-incrimination and to face your accuser. The Sixth: the freedom to enjoy a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers. The Seventh: the right to a jury trial in civil cases. The Eighth: the right against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishment. The question at hand - that only through individual freedom can we have collective freedom - is precisely what those men in the funny wigs had on their minds in those hot summers 215 or so years ago, and it is precisely why they were all willing to commit treason and in a very real, literal sense out their lives at risk by signing the Declaration of Independence 229 years ago.
As for the second ... As long as the political discourse in the land remains open and all thoughts are treated with respect, then people will have no place for censorship. It is only when certain ideas and thoughts are labelled as "anti-American" or "anti-Freedom" or whatever that we start down the inevitable path to a closed, despotic, tyrannical system. Again, to quote the Founders:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This was considered the most important group of freedoms that it was necessary to outline in the Constitution. The Founders knew that when the government controlled the press and limited the rights of citizens to freely express themselves, it inevitably became despotic. It was, by definition, not free.
We have people today that honestly believe that questioning the President is un-American. This is neither the first nor the last time that we have had this debate as a nation. You need go no further back than the 60's and 70's. Recently, two highly decorated Vietnam veterans have been labeled either cowards or traitors (John Kerry and Col. David Hackworth) because they exercised their Constitutional rights to question the war. Many from that era still see those who spoke or protested against the war as traitors. In the 50's, it was McCarthy's House Committee on Un-American Activities. But it was precisely because the country was founded on the prinicipal that only through no censorship and a freedom to disagree can we remain a free and open society that the public sentiment finally turned against the government and forced us out of Vietnam. The same happened to end McCarthyism.
So that's my take. Hope that helps.
posted by robhuddles at 2:53 PM on July 5, 2005
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights. Almost every one of those amendments is based on the principal that only by protecting the rights of individuals can we protect the rights of society. The First: the freedom of religion, speech, and free association. The Fourth: the freedom "people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". The Fifth: the freedom against self-incrimination and to face your accuser. The Sixth: the freedom to enjoy a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers. The Seventh: the right to a jury trial in civil cases. The Eighth: the right against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishment. The question at hand - that only through individual freedom can we have collective freedom - is precisely what those men in the funny wigs had on their minds in those hot summers 215 or so years ago, and it is precisely why they were all willing to commit treason and in a very real, literal sense out their lives at risk by signing the Declaration of Independence 229 years ago.
As for the second ... As long as the political discourse in the land remains open and all thoughts are treated with respect, then people will have no place for censorship. It is only when certain ideas and thoughts are labelled as "anti-American" or "anti-Freedom" or whatever that we start down the inevitable path to a closed, despotic, tyrannical system. Again, to quote the Founders:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This was considered the most important group of freedoms that it was necessary to outline in the Constitution. The Founders knew that when the government controlled the press and limited the rights of citizens to freely express themselves, it inevitably became despotic. It was, by definition, not free.
We have people today that honestly believe that questioning the President is un-American. This is neither the first nor the last time that we have had this debate as a nation. You need go no further back than the 60's and 70's. Recently, two highly decorated Vietnam veterans have been labeled either cowards or traitors (John Kerry and Col. David Hackworth) because they exercised their Constitutional rights to question the war. Many from that era still see those who spoke or protested against the war as traitors. In the 50's, it was McCarthy's House Committee on Un-American Activities. But it was precisely because the country was founded on the prinicipal that only through no censorship and a freedom to disagree can we remain a free and open society that the public sentiment finally turned against the government and forced us out of Vietnam. The same happened to end McCarthyism.
So that's my take. Hope that helps.
posted by robhuddles at 2:53 PM on July 5, 2005
If we ask people to do our homework for us, the terrorists win.
posted by gleuschk at 3:09 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by gleuschk at 3:09 PM on July 5, 2005
This is The Declaration of Dependence any way you slice it.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 5:22 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 5:22 PM on July 5, 2005
"The freedom of the individual depends on the freedom of everyone," is of course a well-known quote from Nietsche. It was part his famous losing remarks at the Scopes Trial, where he defended Larry Flynt from embezzlement charges against the Credit Mobilier. Though he lost the case, a young man in the audience named William O. Douglas was so impressed by the remark he devoted his life to law.
"The freedom to disagree discourages censorship," on the other hand, is a much earlier remark, made by Benjamin Franklin at the Peter Zenger libel trial in 1827. H.L. Mencken, who covered the trial for the French edition of Time Magazine, made fun of the proposition, saying "J'accuse bon mot, infantil le monsieur." This translates approximately as "When the cheese ripens, the worms thrive." The meaning is fairly obvious in this context.
Feel free to cut and paste my comments directly into your paper.
posted by LarryC at 5:33 PM on July 5, 2005
"The freedom to disagree discourages censorship," on the other hand, is a much earlier remark, made by Benjamin Franklin at the Peter Zenger libel trial in 1827. H.L. Mencken, who covered the trial for the French edition of Time Magazine, made fun of the proposition, saying "J'accuse bon mot, infantil le monsieur." This translates approximately as "When the cheese ripens, the worms thrive." The meaning is fairly obvious in this context.
Feel free to cut and paste my comments directly into your paper.
posted by LarryC at 5:33 PM on July 5, 2005
If we ask people to do our homework for us, the terrorists win.
Amen, brother!
posted by jdroth at 5:36 PM on July 5, 2005
Amen, brother!
posted by jdroth at 5:36 PM on July 5, 2005
A new semester must be starting; the poster obviously missed the last time someone got slammed for outsourcing their homework to AskMe.
posted by matildaben at 5:45 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by matildaben at 5:45 PM on July 5, 2005
The best answers to the question are the ones telling the poster to do his own homework. Unfortunately, these are just the type of answers that seem to disappear all too often from the green. Hopefully tonight only this preemptory complaint will "be disappeared" by the censors.
posted by caddis at 5:50 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by caddis at 5:50 PM on July 5, 2005
Relax, bamassippi, this is how you get AskMe to do your homework:
"How do I tell my girlfriend that I need more freedom in our relationship? I don't just mean physical freedom; I mean freedom in the larger sense--philosophical freedom, the freedom to disagree. She's a philosophy major, so how do you think the great philosophers of history would have phrased this to their girlfriends? For reasons I can't explain, I need to tell her tonight."
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:12 PM on July 5, 2005
"How do I tell my girlfriend that I need more freedom in our relationship? I don't just mean physical freedom; I mean freedom in the larger sense--philosophical freedom, the freedom to disagree. She's a philosophy major, so how do you think the great philosophers of history would have phrased this to their girlfriends? For reasons I can't explain, I need to tell her tonight."
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:12 PM on July 5, 2005
this is how you get AskMe to do your homework
Goddamn, weaponsgrade, that is some funny assed shit.
Seriously, do they still have classes in this world where one is forced to produce a forensice defense of a tautology, a cliche, or a truism? I'd say you move it into a more praxis/action-oriented, and therefore more scientific space: disagree vehemently with the assignment, and see if you are censored. Insist on discussing a substantive question or topic. If you are silenced by the professor, point out that you have just proved the negative version of the statement: you are apparently unfree to disagree and therefore the subject of censorship. If the professor indulges you, you have proved the positive and strong form of the statement (now a hypothesis instead of an aphorism): your freedom to disagree will have discouraged censorship.
One can imagine various experiments for testing the first statement in the form of a hypothesis as well, but I'll make you work for the grade a little.
If this professor is smarter than s/he sounds, s/he will appreciate a truly philosophical (in the sense of "scientific") imagination at work, which in this case would be mine of course. But if s/he is as dumb as the assignment suggests, you'll be in deep shit. And then you will truly have *learned* the meaning of freedom.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:10 PM on July 5, 2005
Goddamn, weaponsgrade, that is some funny assed shit.
Seriously, do they still have classes in this world where one is forced to produce a forensice defense of a tautology, a cliche, or a truism? I'd say you move it into a more praxis/action-oriented, and therefore more scientific space: disagree vehemently with the assignment, and see if you are censored. Insist on discussing a substantive question or topic. If you are silenced by the professor, point out that you have just proved the negative version of the statement: you are apparently unfree to disagree and therefore the subject of censorship. If the professor indulges you, you have proved the positive and strong form of the statement (now a hypothesis instead of an aphorism): your freedom to disagree will have discouraged censorship.
One can imagine various experiments for testing the first statement in the form of a hypothesis as well, but I'll make you work for the grade a little.
If this professor is smarter than s/he sounds, s/he will appreciate a truly philosophical (in the sense of "scientific") imagination at work, which in this case would be mine of course. But if s/he is as dumb as the assignment suggests, you'll be in deep shit. And then you will truly have *learned* the meaning of freedom.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:10 PM on July 5, 2005
Feel free to cut and paste my comments directly into your paper.
i.e. this page will show up on google... (just felt the poster deserved a little more warning for actions that could possibly get him/her expelled, depending on the school. Though this is a truly idiotic and lazy question, speaking as a TA.)
posted by advil at 8:41 PM on July 5, 2005
i.e. this page will show up on google... (just felt the poster deserved a little more warning for actions that could possibly get him/her expelled, depending on the school. Though this is a truly idiotic and lazy question, speaking as a TA.)
posted by advil at 8:41 PM on July 5, 2005
Though this is a truly idiotic and lazy question, speaking as a TA.
You don't know what the question is, nor the in-class context behind it. It's possible that the instructor irritatingly and lazily just said: "Tomorrow, be prepared to discuss the following statements." But it's also possible that there's a good bit more to it.
posted by redfoxtail at 9:00 PM on July 5, 2005
You don't know what the question is, nor the in-class context behind it. It's possible that the instructor irritatingly and lazily just said: "Tomorrow, be prepared to discuss the following statements." But it's also possible that there's a good bit more to it.
posted by redfoxtail at 9:00 PM on July 5, 2005
Why do people have such a big issue with students who go online to talk to other people to find out information for their homework? Why do you think asking other people is somehow a less valid way to gather information than reading or looking up articles?
posted by biffa at 3:33 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by biffa at 3:33 AM on July 6, 2005
It would be possible to ask in a reasonable way, or in a finding out information way. "I don't recognize these quotes, if they're quotes -- can someone point me in the right direction here?" Or "I'm not sure where Professor X is coming from, but this is in a section on Whatever. Can someone help me get started?"
But bamasippi's question seemed closer to "What's the answer, so I don't have to think about this?" Seemed, I note, not was. Especially since (s)he was asking what two perfectly cogent English sentences meant. No big words, nothing technical in either of them, not even complex syntax. Sitting down and actually thinking for an hour about what they might mean, and what their implications might be, should be sufficient.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:09 AM on July 6, 2005
But bamasippi's question seemed closer to "What's the answer, so I don't have to think about this?" Seemed, I note, not was. Especially since (s)he was asking what two perfectly cogent English sentences meant. No big words, nothing technical in either of them, not even complex syntax. Sitting down and actually thinking for an hour about what they might mean, and what their implications might be, should be sufficient.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:09 AM on July 6, 2005
Why do you think asking other people is somehow a less valid way to gather information than reading or looking up articles?
Because the most important thing to learn in school is how to learn. Cheating your way through, or having others do your heavy lifting deprives you of that experience. If the question were idle curiosity, or directed to his work (where the end result matters more than the process) then I doubt there would be much quarrel with it.
posted by caddis at 7:00 AM on July 6, 2005
Because the most important thing to learn in school is how to learn. Cheating your way through, or having others do your heavy lifting deprives you of that experience. If the question were idle curiosity, or directed to his work (where the end result matters more than the process) then I doubt there would be much quarrel with it.
posted by caddis at 7:00 AM on July 6, 2005
Because the most important thing to learn in school is how to learn.
I'll agree with that, but asking people who know more than you do is a valid form of learning.
posted by biffa at 3:25 AM on July 7, 2005
I'll agree with that, but asking people who know more than you do is a valid form of learning.
posted by biffa at 3:25 AM on July 7, 2005
You don't know what the question is
This thread is dead, but I feel mildly obliged to defend myself. It doesn't matter what the question is, or how poorly it was asked. The question the poster asked is vague, broad, and shows absolutely no effort beyond writing down the assignment. The original post (and the followups in thread) show no evidence of even trying to think about the question. This is what I meant by lazy. As to asking people who know more than you do, this is fine with me. But the way this was asked amounts to "can you do this assignment for me?" Part of learning how to learn is learning how to ask good questions, and a good question is typically somewhat specific, approachable, and not vague. More broadly, learning how to learn involves learning how to think critically about a topic, and this question does not help the poster do that at all - if someone were to actually answer it for them straight out, they would never have done that, but yet would have an answer.
If the question were more specific, and showed that the poster had thought about it some and had hit roadblocks, I would never have called it idiotic and lazy.
posted by advil at 2:32 PM on July 8, 2005
This thread is dead, but I feel mildly obliged to defend myself. It doesn't matter what the question is, or how poorly it was asked. The question the poster asked is vague, broad, and shows absolutely no effort beyond writing down the assignment. The original post (and the followups in thread) show no evidence of even trying to think about the question. This is what I meant by lazy. As to asking people who know more than you do, this is fine with me. But the way this was asked amounts to "can you do this assignment for me?" Part of learning how to learn is learning how to ask good questions, and a good question is typically somewhat specific, approachable, and not vague. More broadly, learning how to learn involves learning how to think critically about a topic, and this question does not help the poster do that at all - if someone were to actually answer it for them straight out, they would never have done that, but yet would have an answer.
If the question were more specific, and showed that the poster had thought about it some and had hit roadblocks, I would never have called it idiotic and lazy.
posted by advil at 2:32 PM on July 8, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Dr. Wu at 2:03 PM on July 5, 2005