Actually I'm all in favour for self-censorship because if everyone always blurted out every stupid thought they had then the signal to noise ratio of would be horrendous. However there needs to be a sane balance between having the freedom to say dumb things but largely having more sense not to, and having the freedom to say important things which might be unpopular but still needs to be said. It's a difficult, if not impossible, balance to strike.
The thing you're calling X here isn't X. There's a big difference between what the comment you're replying to is calling self-censorship (chilling effects), and what you're calling self-censorship (googling before you ask a question, etc).
If I understand you right, you're saying you support the state punishing people for saying dumb things, but feel that it shouldn't be too harsh because otherwise people won't say important things.
When I first read your comment I didn't think the idea of banning dumb speech was a good idea. But hearing it put the way you just did made me change my mind... because I think it would be hilarious. I hope you get your wish, and your comment becomes Exhibit A at your upcoming trial :p
> If I understand you right, you're saying you support the state punishing people for saying dumb things
I don't. I oppose it strongly[1][2]. I just think the kid is also in the wrong (albeit less so). Sometimes people argue free speech as an excuse to say anything - and while I'd rather live in a world where people have the freedom to say whatever they want, I also think people have a moral obligation to be mindful of the audience they communicate with.
A wedding speech is an example of this. The best man has to strike the balance between embarrassing the groom while still keeping content appropriate for kids and grandparents. So some of the jokes that the groom and friends would laugh at in private might be best censored from the public version.
Granted that example is a really mild scenario that most people wouldn't consider "self-censorship" (if just because it's what most people do in their daily lives without much thought), but it demonstrates how we have a responsibility not to abuse our free speech by now considering the audience we're talking to. And that is where people run into problems.
> but feel that it shouldn't be too harsh because otherwise people won't say important things.
And this is just another example of how some individuals think they can post all sorts of rude bullshit online because "freedom of speech" gives them the right to behave like pillocks.
Given the number of times I've stated and clarified the point that I'm not trying to ban free speech nor am I justifying the teenagers jail time (which is unjustifiable), you have no excuse to behave that way. But who cares about having a sensible conversation when you can beat your chest like the alpha male you assume to be.
The ironic thing is, when people like yourself make insulting remarks like that, you force others to question whether they can be bothered to expose themselves by giving an honest -if potentially unpopular- opinion. So you're effectively encouraging self-censorship by posting trolling remarks.
> some individuals think they can post all sorts of rude bullshit online because "freedom of speech" gives them the right to behave like pillocks
Right. Freedom of speech does give them that right.
You've backed off from your original position all the way to merely making the point that you wish people would think more about the effect that their actions have on others before acting. I think everyone agrees with that.
Taking 14 paragraphs to say "people should think more before acting" is the sort of thing I think you think should be self-censored.
> So you're effectively encouraging self-censorship by posting trolling remarks.
Reread the comment I replied to, and the comment it was replying to. You didn't understand the other side -- you rounded it to the nearest straw man, and then did a poor job of attacking it. I thought it was a waste of space on the site. I do support your right to free speech... I just doubly support it on sites that aren't this one.
Communities don't need to have the same standards as governments. If facebook banned the kid for his comment, that doesn't seem wrong to me. Having the government enforce things like this does seem wrong to me (for the reason that I pointed out: we'd end up having to spend tax dollars supporting people like you while they're in jail).
> You've backed off from your original position all the way to merely making the point that you wish people would think more about the effect that their actions have on others before acting. I think everyone agrees with that.
That was always my position. Trying reading what I originally posted again rather than posting kneejerk reactions.
> Taking 14 paragraphs to say "people should think more before acting" is the sort of thing I think you think should be self-censored
There was a number of points. And the post doubled in size because I had to dumb those points down to people like yourself who seemed unable to read my post in it's entirety before starting senseless arguments. Perversely, it's yourself that should have considered before replying.
>Communities don't need to have the same standards as governments. If facebook banned the kid for his comment, that doesn't seem wrong to me. Having the government enforce things like this does seem wrong to me (for the reason that I pointed out: we'd end up having to spend tax dollars supporting people like you while they're in jail).
"we'd end up having to spend tax dollars supporting people like you"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I've probably contributed more towards taxes over my life than you have.
And I was never in favour of sending this kid to jail. I don't know how many times I need to reiterate that before you finally click. Or are you deliberate trolling me just for the irony of being an insensitive moron in a discussion about sensitivity?
