Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.

Necessary curbing or censorship?

Utilitarian logic does have some major downsides, Solaris, as you say. On the other hand, even the founders of Utilitarianism envisioned its use *within* a society, as opposed to imposing it upon another society, and they themselves saw the downsides and worked on ways to limit negative uses of it (and the classic one was by establishing a set of ground rules, which could not be violated because they were absolute rights... yes, this is where the whole concept came from, and why).

Where you have a philosophical problem is that you are envisioning a particular set of rules that apply to your society, taking an extreme position on them, and then imposing those rules on societies where that extreme position on those rules is not accepted. Specifically, the right to unlimited free speech. It's an extreme position, because it does not exist even in the USA, and yet by assuming it to be an absolute right and refusing to allow any compromises on it even in other countries where it is not assumed to be an absolute right, you are demanding that it be imposed in every other country in the world. By what right do you demand this?

(Yes, I am playing devil's advocate here)

Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
Brazil is arresting people for saying things the government does not want them to say. How is that not suppressing their freedom of speech?
Are you certain that's what is going on?

From the article in the OP:

"The videos made provocative statements about an alleged paternity suit involving Alcides Bernal, a mayoral candidate in the city of Campo Grande, and the court in the southern state of Mato Grosso do Sul ruled that they violate Brazil's electoral law."

Electoral laws exist for legitimate reasons, and a court ruling in favor of them against a provocative video may or may not be wielding undue censorship in government interest. It isn't clear from the cited source whether Mr. Bernal is the standing mayor or someone challenging him, nor is it clear exactly how the video violates electoral law, or whether the law is one that Americans would generally support.

However, it is a Brazilian law providing electoral rules. If the video in question is in violation of those rules, the maker of the video does not have permission to broadcast whatever s/he wishes to say about the candidate on YouTube.

If the citizens of Brazil are not in favor of the electoral legislation of their country, the place to fight it is in the legislature, not Google's regional office. If they're unable to fight it in the legislature due to some form of oppression, then Google/YouTube may be an appropriate venue. But the article doesn't cite YouTube usage to illuminate and overthrow oppressive legislation, it cites what sounds like illegal broadcasting of material designed to affect an election.

Going to point out that Brazil is not America, they do not have free speech.

From the wiki: "However, there are legal provisions criminalizing the desecration of religious artifacts at the time of worship, hate speech, racism, defamation, calumny and libel." It has free speech, but not the unlimited free speech of the US.

Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
It has free speech, but not the unlimited free speech of the US.
Rather like the majority of the 'western world'. Including the US.

Originally Posted by Silverthorne View Post
Going to point out that Brazil is not America, they do not have free speech.
I take it you missed my first post in the thread, then.
There was a point in time where nobody had free speech. Following your argument, nobody would have ever gotten it.

Following your seemingly absolutist definition of free speech, nobody HAS free speech, let alone had.

Originally Posted by loveandwar View Post
well since google is an American company they can't legally force google to stop showing certain videos. However if the country doesn't like google then perhaps they should figure out a way to filter it themselves instead of arresting someone who really has no say over what is shown and what isn't
I believe that countries have the right to enforce their own laws. And google should respond in kind - shut showing of a video from that country. Naturally, one country's laws shouldn't dictate the entire corporate model, or the showing of media in another country; but it should have control of what is shown within its borders.

It is bogus people should be allowed to watch what they want... it should be there free will rest as adults one is mature enough to decide if that is wrong or not... censorship isn't going to do any good, people still get to watch those videos.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-10-18 09:00:12am local time
Myth-Weavers Status