Censorship

>govern """actual hate speech"""
Do you want to get shot because this is how you're going to get shot

The strong should fear the weak.

>n-no you!
>weak bitchy leftist
Checks out

go back to your ted containment thread pls

Shot as in what I’m saying sounds totalitarian, or shot as in something else? Not baiting just actually curious

>come to Yea Forums
>bitch and cry about everything in every thread
>EVERYONE ELSE GO SOME OTHER PLACE ON THIS WEBSITE I DONT EVEN WANT TO BE ON PLS
lmao
fuck around and find out

>>bitch and cry about everything in every thread
and calling everything you disagree with a discord tranny isn't that? lol

Attached: 47b.jpg (665x574, 29K)

Most censorship is actually useful, only a small fraction of it is actually negative or in any way socially unacceptable. Just look over the books list in the disturbing books thread in the catalog right now. 95% of the books on that list have basically zero artistic merit whatsoever and are totally just garbage for sick minds. The fact that any of it is banned or censored if fine by me. If a few good books get caught up in that so be it.

Freedom for the Though We Hate is a nice overview of free speech laws in Ameruca

I hate you

>this happens to him so often he has to bring it up out of nowhere
>image title came from kym or some shit
looks like a duck to me. You clearly don't like the website so stop using it you delusional retard.

>If a few good books get caught up in that so be it
The most overlooked is perverse outcomes of half-assed western censorship:
* chilling effect. future good books don't get written because they deal with banned topic.
* streisand effect. the banned topic is in fact promoted disproportionately, unless punishment is severe and enforceable

Taboos, being a cultural consensus, tend to be more effective than censoring by fiat.

I was reading the court decision and a letter from joyce regarding the ulysses ban and people basically made bootleg home joyce labs and just sold the book themselves and he got fucked over and it was still read

This is interesting, because there is clearly a minor streisand effect but on the whole censorship actually works really really well. Deplatforming unironically works to deplatform people. The amount of people who are going to actually try to create their own alternative avenues to share a banned topic, or who are actually going to utilize tools for accessing banned topics is next to nothing.

1. Most people dont know the tools to get around things like bans exist.
2. People who do know about them are often too lazy to use them or see the inconvenience as too great.

See China, almost nobody uses tor or VPNs in China relative to their population. Most users of tor aren't even to access actual taboo or banned content for example. A recent tor survey I saw put out by the tor foundation showed that over 90% of their traffic was people using Facebook. People acclimate to censorship naturally.

I'm sure you'll make for a very handsome prison guard, lackey, but intelligent people like to discuss things

>in this place where they genocided 100 million peasants who were living in basically the middle ages 60 years ago they banned the internet
Lets get it going buddy you're gonna be a door kicker right? I'm ready. Or you want someone else to create the environment for your lofty ideals for you?

Have fun arguing with .308

Not saying I like it, just stating a fact, normies seem to acclimate to censorship quite naturally in most historical occurrences of it on a wide scale. If you want to argue that they by-and-large don't, and want to cite some numbers like I just did to prove your point, go ahead. I'm all ears. Remember that most French did not participate in the resistance against Hitler, not because they liked him, but because it was easy not to.

I don't really care what normies will or won't do. I hope that you get your wish. You may find someone you know knows who you are.

Not an argument, stay on the wrong side of history.

Have fun getting shot

Okay, Stalin

>do what I say and let me control your life or you're a dictator
imagine being this retarded. You must live in constant agony being this fucking dumb. Just kill yourself you worthless coward. No one likes dealing with you and its painfully obvious when they have to endure you presence. Stop being a pussy and jump.

jimmies: rustled
anus: prolapsed
mirth: zero

You don't need to announce that you're upset on 4channel

cope harder faggot

>hurrrrr durrrr kill all the smart people because :( brainlet feel bad

Attached: 010FE94E-D5B2-4802-8C02-52D0DC8E9C08.jpg (2881x1935, 1.95M)

>ddduuuurrr I had a thought and you have to respect me because I thought a thing
If you continue on the your collective trajectory you are going to set in motion events that will lead to you being shot. There is nothing to discuss, and you have an unwarranted sense of self-importance. That latter part is actually what causes all of this.

You are saying this to multiple people who are arguing on opposing sides of the issue because you can't keep the thread straight you retarded fuck. But no, keep on threatening people instead of having a real discussion like the rest of us, it is all someone as fucking stupid as you is capable of I guess.

>well you see we're just having a nuanced discussion about your rights and life for the next 60 years and i get off on "playing the devil's advocate" and I don't like the way you're contributing to our very serious discussion about this
I don't really care about your impression of me on Yea Forums. You need a punch in the fucking mouth. You can't talk everything out, and not everything is worth discussing. I think you're going to find, relatively soon, that words aren't worth very much. I would wish you good luck out there but it wouldn't be sincere.

I love hangman
E?

You're retarded, so you might not understand this, but threatening people on Yea Forums is about as meaningful as sending rape threats to the moon. No one cares about your fantasies of revolution except your fellow retarded LARPers.

"You'll all be sorry!!!!" is something rich children scream when they get hit with a snowball.

Attached: 8BFCCBA0-4298-46FD-A1D6-BC36A143C6EE.jpg (2954x1969, 1.32M)

OP here, posting again to stop the detailing of the thread by the badass who’s threatening to shoot people talking.

What are y’all thoughts on the possibility of useful censorship, or a regime that punishes “thoughtcrime” (not actually anything that doesn’t support the regime like 1984, but just something that actually stops hate speech from happening because half the time it’s just “hurr durr nonwhites bad”)?
The paradox of tolerance comes to mind: in order to remain tolerant, you have to be intolerant of intolerant speech.

I think it makes sense, provided it’s done in a way that doesn’t actually stifle satire or anything like that.

>deplatforming
Deplatforming is not technically censorship. And if you label it as such, deplatforming is severe punishment within that scope (as the account gets literally annihilated). If it were half-assed censorship, the post would be removed and the account suspended for few days. Like facebook does.

>vpn
VPNs are commonplace in china. Also, porn is banned in china.

On liberty, J.S. Mill

my mom (60yo) grew up in the USSR and read a large share of "self-printed" books, one of her relatives worked in publish field or some shit. most of this books are recognized classics now.
among english pieces i've found this on the subject: litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1590

Attached: 1554560871898.png (500x326, 184K)

publishing*
these*
excuse my retarded phoneposting

>But I’m actually interested in this to understand how the web could be governed better and made a useful discursive tool rather than being made of some gems covered by mountains of antagonistic shit.
The web is already a useful discursive tool. You're in the wrong corner of the internet if your interest is polite and civil discourse. There are places for civil niceties, and this is not one of them.
If anything, I'd say it's an impossible task without the total destruction of the possibility of internet anonymity, and that's a technological and economic problem way before it's a political one.

It sounds like you're an advocate for certain kinds of censorship on principle, and you're looking for material to defend those views, rather than keeping an open mind to the contrary.
Which I can understand. Most people are like that online, and real debate is almost nonexistent. I'd urge you to look at texts which make freedom their principle value, and seriously consider the counterpoints.

Do you have any texts that would support freedom of speech entirely? I used to consider myself someone who was staunchly anti-censorship, but the more shit I see the more I wish certain people just weren’t allowed to speak, because it’s clear they’re not interested in adding anything beyond vitriol. It’d be nice to see the pros and cons of both sides again.

> the more I wish certain people just weren’t allowed to speak
Don't fall for this. Free speech includes things you dislike. Also, as someone above said, Streisand effect would be strong here, giving these people more credit.

I'm an American, so my view of governmental oversight is mostly informed by articles on corruption and how ruling classes tend to consistently infringe on the rights of the populace, and the difficulty of reducing the power of government when that legal right is put into law.
The problem is that it's mostly an amalgam of different essays and articles or even from some college courses, usually on political arguments about federalism and game theory and political parties, and governmental/ruling bodies vying for power.
Unfortunately I haven't read anything recently that I could say would help, and if I have I don't have it bookmarked. Maybe the Federalist/Anti--Federalist papers.
If this thread is alive tomorrow I'll look through a folder of saved articles from a really great polysci course I took years ago and might be able to give you something from that. It was more about economics, but it touched on a lot of subjects.
All that said, the Republic was recommended earlier, which is a good. Rousseau vs. Hobbes and their stance on human nature always comes to mind when I think about what informs people's politics on freedom and oversight, which may help as well.

I can't say I have a particular text or book in mind when it comes down to censorship and speech, so I'm sorry not to be of any specific help in that regard. I guess when thinking about it, I see it as more of a combination of disparate topics/work/fields that help to inform a political leaning on that subject.
Sorry to seem like too much of a long-winded ideologue. I hope you get some good recommendations, and find what you're looking for.