Do you approve of censorship under any circumstances? What and why?

I think it's ok and necessary to censor any communication that spreads prejudice, hatred  and violence.

I would like to see some kind of law that discourages abuse and bullying, perhaps forgiving the first instance and becoming stronger for each offence against the same person or group.

I also think that slander laws are valid so long as the current limitations apply: it is slander if what is said proves false or if such information is not a matter the public needs to know.

Other than these limits, I believe all issues should be open to public and private discussion, including (honest and constructive) criticism, lampooning and satire.

If you censor what people say hartfire you deny people the right to see what they are. I LOVE to see people hanging themselves with their own words. Those are the tracks they leave behind. A blueprint of the person as it were. A warning sign.  I think people should say whatever they want to say and be responsible for the consequences. I WANT to know what I'm dealing with. I WANT the haters/racists/bigots/misogynists to identify themselves for all the world to see. Don't you?  If you censor what they say you are protecting them from being revealed for what they are. Now where children are concerned I think it is good to protect them from ugly/vulgar/hateful as much as is possible. That is a different matter entirely. Until they are of an age to understand. Otherwise let 'er rip. Let the white supremacists and the KKK and the skinheads spew their hateful rhetoric.  Let people slander and be known as LIARS as they lose the lawsuits that they were surely face.
Let the Donald Trumps of the world foment hate by their words. How else do we know where the landmines ares,  the quicksand, the Do Not Enter? Just my opinion. Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday. Oh. "Just Asking" wondered who the Answermugger was who thought that perhaps Questioners could remove responses. I gave her your name. I hope you don't mind. She said she would contact you to find out if there might be a glitch affecting you specifically! :)

It depends on the place and the situation. If there are children present I would hope people would self censor their language and visual pictures the children may see. And if they don't the parent should have the right to ask politely to correct themselves in front of the children.
And if you are a guest or member in some one's home, club or group, website, or on a job site the leader/leader/owner can make their own rules.

Thank you for your reply m2c! So you're a kinda big deal here! I did not know. Just Asking told me that Karen is no longer helping her to maintain the site and you volunteered to step in. How does it feel to have the power to remove answers? I don't know if the shoe is on the other foot. I don't know if you had problems at Answerbag with CL's removing your stuff without ever telling you why, I did and it annoyed me. Unless you are told what you did wrong you will keep on doing it. Just Asking said she does let folks know the WHY. I expect you will too, right? Anyway congrats!

JA did contact me. I couldn't be specific because I'd forgotten the details. I said that if it happened again I would take note and let her know.

Regarding your stance on freedom of speech, I respect your reasons. Here on this site, the written record is useful in the ways you say. We learn to recognise the different characters and are at liberty to relate or not, according to our affinities and interests. I like that. I suspect you might enjoy Brad Blanton's take on "Radical Honesty." It has a lot going for it - a tough love approach.

I think my view on having some limits to absolute freedom of speech probably arises from my experiences of being bullied in Primary School. Most of what I suffered was verbal, far less severe than what many victims go through, and yet it has left a life-long scar. So far, I have not discovered how to overcome it.

I was bullied too hartfire. I skipped a few grades in grammar school so I was a natural target. To make it worse I was a painfully shy child. I survived a 6th grade teacher who took a dislike to me for some reason. She is long since dead. Her name was Miss Nyburg. She would often call on me in class starting off with "Miss ___________ since you know so much why don't you answer my question?" Can you imagine that? I  have never hated anyone in my life but if I ever did she would top the list. The kids would look at me and giggle. It was not a good time. High school was somewhat better but not a whole lot. I was already branded as being a Teacher's Pet. It was a small town so the kids from grammar school went to the same high school. I survived that too. The only scar left is my disdain/distaste/dislike of the Miss Nyburgs of the world. Kids don't know any better. Adults SHOULD. Thank you for your thoughtful reply and Happy Saturday m'dear! :)

I think most people can agree on a few situations where censorship may be appropriate:

A) Shielding children from content with excessive violence and/or sexual content (although the exact standard is contestable)

B) Suppressing the market for any content which was produced by deliberate harm to others (e.g. child pornography)

C) Keeping information essential to the function of legitimate national defenses out of the public realm (where a potential enemy might exploit the information)

D) Anonymization of people involved in criminal or civil court proceedings where public knowledge of the participants might subvert due process.

Other than that, I tend to be something of an absolutist when it comes to free speech. In the main, when free speech damages, it only causes OFFENSE, not actual HARM, and I'm willing to tolerate some offensiveness to foster the free exchange of ideas.

I will, however, admit that the coarsening of public discourse in my lifetime makes me wonder if the "free speech" standard  upheld in many European countries might be more appropriate to a society steeped in Mass Media Culture.

In the USA, one can shout "Donald Trump diddles goats" all day long, and because Trump is a public figure, there is basically nothing he can do about it. In some European countries, such a public claim would require substantiating evidence, otherwise Mr. Trump could sue for damages to his public reputation, even if no tangible harm could be shown. I wonder if the "censoring" effect of such a standard would rid our public discourse of much of the "President Obama is a Nazi Kenyan Communist Mulsim Who Hates America, wants to take away our guns, and round us into FEMA camps" argle-bargle while still permitting "President Obama is a lousy president" dissent.

I think children should be protected as much as possible from ugly/coarse/vulgar language. Adults are on their own. I LIKE seeing the tracks of ugliness left by hatemongers/racists/bigots/misogynists. They hang themselves with their own words and that is their legacy. It tells us exactly what they are which is always helpful.  I think people have a right to say whatever the he** they want however disgusting and ugly and inflammatory it may be. And those who hear/read the crap have a right to react to it. Free speech allows them to sabotage themselves without restriction. No one has to do a thing but let them. Words are o nly words until and unless they are acted upon. There are consequences. Mahalo for your thoughtful reply OS and Happy Saturday! :)

probably depends on whats going on at the time

Yes. I do.  I do not trust the mentality of idiots to just use words any way they wish.   Words are powerful and can HURT and cause damage when inappropriately uttered by morons.   There are plenty of those around, and until the human race has evolved enough to monitor themselves,  (we are not even close to that) we need loftier minds to police the troublemaking haters, for one. We need monitors on the net to stop the bullying that can cause fear and actual suicides when they penetrate young, impressionable minds.  And what about predators like molesters of children on the net?  Should they not be censored out of hand if even a hint of that nonsense is suspected?  I would rather err on the side of caution then hurt any child or innocent party.

OS yeah. That stuff.

@RosieG -- I must beg to differ. The evidence from psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics indicates speech has influence beyond our conscious processing, and there is little evidence to suggest people who utter ridiculous/bigoted/idiotic speech suffer negative consequence for it in any consistent way. Just look at the presidential run of Donald Trump.

The only reason I can cite for allowing such argle-bargle is that the "cure" (having some Government Department of Argle-Bargle Suppression) would be worse than the "disease", but I think the scientific evidence supports describing it as a disease.

Sounds like you had a gift for learning from a young age.

Happy Sunday to you, RosieG.

 I have always been curious. So many questions about so many things so much of the time! Answermug is a perfect outlet for me as was Answerbag before it. Lucky us hartfire! Happy Sunday right backatcha m'dear!  :)

 It surpises me that you who hold individual rights and  privacy sacred and invasion thereof unacceptable would hold that position OS. You often defend the rights of those who are on lists or charged with crimes. You tell us to wait till all the facts are in. Don't jump to conclusions. You don't want your phones tapped or to be stopped unless the cause is apparent. But you draw the line at freedom of speech. It's okay that we disagree. I think there is an inconsistency in your view but I'm sure you don't think  much of my view on this either! So what, right? Mahalo for your reply and the video! :)

I am not a big deal. I am just a helper for JA there is to many of us for ne person to keep up with. I don't remove anything unless it is a violation of the TOS. And yes anytime someone answer is deleted they are notified of what it was and why it was removed. So as you said the user can correct themselves in the future.
I never had problems on AB with CLs....the only problem I had there was I was suspended once for spam when I answered several similar questions with the same basic answer.

You're kidding. Did the Asker get suspended too? Well I was PB'd 4 times and it was only the first time I was informed why. The other times I wasn't. As for questions being removed I never follow them so it was only when friends told me they went to answer the question and it was gone that I knew. Thank you for your reply m2c.

It was several similar questions by different Askers.

There are many horrible things available that we don't need to see Rosie.  If they're legal I have no problem with people seeking them out, but firmly believe some images are not for general public consumption.

But if we're talking about nipples, nudity or colourful language then I have no issues as long as these things are presented appropriately.  While I realise that 'appropriately' will mean different things to different people, I take it to mean in this context that we don't see colourful language on the news for example, or naked weather forecasters,  While I think there's a place for these things if people want them, I don't think that making them mainstream would add to the news or weather reports in any substantive way.

Once censorship gets past a certain point it becomes silly.  If you study the ancient world for example, it is impossible to learn about many things without looking at 'rude' pictures or reading 'bad' language.  A large proportion of items found at Pompeii went straight into 'closed' collections in the 19th century and we still don't know about everything that was removed or where it was taken.  So the mores of 19th century Europe come to determine what we can learn now, which I find rather sad.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer MrWitch. I believe children need to be protected as much as possible from ugly/vulgar/seedy/disgusting. I think adults ought to be able to figure out what matters on their own. They don't need a big daddy or big mama to decide for them. In addition to which it helps us to see what it is we are dealing with. When people have freedom to be ugly/disgusting/despicable  they leave tracks.   It is their legacy. Why should we be prevented from seeing who they really are? How else do we decide if they are our cuppa tea or not? If you ask me how we can allow such freedom while simultaneously protecting our children I am not smart enough to know the answer to that but I trust others are. I just want to know how low people go so I can step over them and avoid them because they have nothing to offer me. I think people have a right to open themselves completely. To let it all hang out. Then WE decide if we want anything to do with them. We decide if we want to shun them or banish them or ignore them or revile them or ridicule them. I don't want that decision made for me. I want to be the one who makes it. Happy Sunday! :)

Thank you.

Also of course "Donald Trump diddles goats" is the truth and therefore protected by slander rules.

I do not approve of censorship except online threads like this one when they come under attack from trolls and other a-holes!

No, I like to know who I'm dealing with. However, threats of violence / coercion, defamation, slander are not forms free speech / expression, they constitute the initiation of force. It's worth noting that in my opinion.