Freedom of speech online: Unclear on the concept
December 7, 2007 10:43 AM PST
A German politician recently sued Wikipedia to have images related to the Third Reich removed from the site. Then she changed her mind and withdrew the complaint, after vehement disapproval by her own party. But she's still campaigning to have an Internet-wide agreement not to use or display "anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, and extreme right positions."
It's not just Wikipedia: Yahoo, YouTube, and eBay have all occasionally drawn criticism (and legal action) for providing information and documents from Nazi Germany.
Where should Web sites draw the line between documenting the truth and providing fuel for hate movements?
Read the full story on Ars Technica: "German politician sues, unsues Wikipedia over Nazi symbols"
It's past time to realize that hiding the truth is not going to give less or more ammunition to hate groups. What WILL give less ammunition to hate groups is shutting them down as soon as they come out into the open, and having a special part of the FBI that solely searches for groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, etc. and SHUTS THEM DOWN HARD, putting their leaders into jail and taking their children from them so that they are not contaminated by their parents hatred.
Intelligent individuals are quite capable of filtering out what are patently blatant "flavorings" to information they seek!
Bill Brke
http://wirelessspeech.blogspot.com
- by americakills4money December 9, 2007 1:13 PM PST
- Sociology Professor Invites KKK to Speak
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Luna M December 9, 2007 6:43 PM PST
- This superstitious practice would not have stopped if some government tried to hide it. It only stopped because it was confronted in the light by the truth of medical science, and thereby human thinking and conduct evolved.
- Like this
-
- by dmm December 10, 2007 11:08 AM PST
- Excellent post. (Actually, so good, it sounds made-up. But that doesn't matter to me, because it makes the point so well.)
- Like this
-
(8 Comments)When I was a student at a well known State University, a sociology professor invited the KKK to come speak.
Before the klan-members came, the professor asked us about our thoughts on the Klan. Everyone spoke about how wrong the Klan was, etc, but we all paid lip service to their Free Speech rights. And none of us had any direct experience with the Klan.
The people who addressed us explained that Blacks were not really humans, and that they had the reports of their doctors to prove it. They said that racial violence was wrong, but not for ethical reasons. It was wrong for the same reasons you shouldn't mistreat farm animals- it was simply counterproductive. They endorsed racial separation, as well as a return to slavery.
These individuals were unable to withstand the questioning and crossexamination of the students in the classroom. They ended up embarassed by their inability to address all our objections and concerns.
Afterwards, the professor asked us what we thought of the Klan, and our denunciations were much more angry and heated. In this post-discussion, there were no mention of Free Speech rights. Instead, many students spoke of censorship and imprisonment for such hate-speech as the Klan members gave.
The professor pointed out to us that before we heard the Klan speak, we were detachedly opposed to them, but afterwards, we were strongly emotionally opposed to them.
But he cautioned against censoring their views. He said that if their views were censored, we would not have had the opportunity to become emotionally opposed to them. If their views were censored, we would not have been able to experience first-hand how profoundly ignorant they were. If they were censored, the very act of censorship would lend support to them, because we are all drawn to forbidden secrets. If they were censored, their rediculous views could not be cross-examined, and their preposterous assumptions might be taken as fact.
He explained that movements like the KKK can only exist and thrive when they are virtually outlawed, for their ideas cannot withstand the light of day. With censorship, it might be that some disillusioned young white boy seeking a place to fit in might get caught up by their explainations and promisses. If the KKK were outlawed, only people willing to be outlaws would find a home with them.
Censorship is always wrong, and should not be tolerated for any reason. Ideas work like the economy- Good ideas thrive and bad one's fade away. Notice that (almost) noone puts leeches on their children anymore to suck out sickness. This superstitious practice would not have stopped if some government tried to hide it. It only stopped because it was confronted in the light by the truth of medical science, and thereby human thinking and conduct evolved.
The same is true for the KKK and Nazis.
Best regards, AK4$
And yet, deists continue to flourish. A bad idea has to be pretty universally destructive and miserable before people will realize that it is to their detriment to support it.
Not an argument, just a comment.