Should bad opinions be censored?

[Conserative Morality]

If practicable in a good debatte showing that the bad opinion doesn't have any arguments to back it up while the good opinion clearly has them up its sleeves and therefore is VERY EVIDENTLY superior.
Because showing that good opinions are superior is the best way of eliminating bad opinions.


It can also lead to new opinions that MAY be even better. You never know.

I believe that's what I was saying. =/

[Conserative Morality]

There, now you have a clever play on words.

[Cromarty]

No. They should be engaged/contested and shown to be outdated/unneeded/bad.

[Birkinghamia]

Censoring "bad opinions" is a violation of free speech, so no.

Anyway, the term "bad opinion" is relative. Any opinion could be deemed "bad" from different points of view.

[Kemaliste]

I support that nobody can glorify some bad ideas such as Shariatism or any other reactionary ideologies which aims to destroy democratic and secular system of a country. Trying to destroy democracy with democratic ways is out of democratic tolerance. And nobody can clearly support a fundamentalist or separatist terrorist organization which kills civilians and security forces of the state and causes a chaos in the country.

[Conserative Morality]

I support that nobody can glorify some bad ideas such as Shariatism or any other reactionary ideologies which aims to destroy democratic and secular system of a country. Trying to destroy democracy with democratic ways is out of democratic tolerance. And nobody can clearly support a terrorist organization which kills civilians and security forces of the state and causes a chaos in the country.

Define "Support"?

[Rivenwood]

I believe that's what I was saying. =/

In taht case consider my post an elaboration and +1ing of yours.

[Kemaliste]

I support that nobody can glorify some bad ideas such as Shariatism or any other reactionary ideologies which aims to destroy democratic and secular system of a country. Trying to destroy democracy with democratic ways is out of democratic tolerance. And nobody can clearly support a terrorist organization which kills civilians and security forces of the state and causes a chaos in the country.

Define "Support"?

I support the censorship and punishment of that kind of opinions.

[Fedeledland]

SCIENCE!

No, better, blind women.

What about both blind and deaf women over 85? They must surely be credible.

OP: Absolutely not. And science doesn't matter in opinion statements. So no.

[Idealismania]

I support free speech. I think it is one of our greatest freedoms that we have. However, there are some groups who use it to gather cult followings based on outright lies. You have all heard of them. There are people who think the earth is flat, people who think we never went to the moon, people who think dinosaurs and human beings walked among each other, people who STILL think Obama is a muslim.

It may be easy to dismiss it and say these people have no real influence on the world, but aside from the flat earth people, polls show that a significant percentage of the population believes in the other things stated. That is because even the most illogical views can be made to seem logical with the right words. People are easily swayed and tend to follow people who dont "conform" to beliefs that most people have.

Thats why ive been thinking, why should insane conspiracy theorists even have a voice when its so clear they they are wrong? Why not just censor/condemn it? If you have no proof to back up what you say or if science has disproven you, what good is your crazed point of view? Its ok to have an opinion, but it has to be a good one.

I think big brother from 1984 would completely agree with you. This would be a great philosophy if you were part of a dictatorship and wanted to stay in power.

[Neo Arcad]

Let's see.
*looks at Bill of Rights*
I guess if we're fucking over the First Amendment, we might as well reinstate slavery and force people to give testimony against themselves in court. Actually... why do we even NEED courts at this point? Let's just have one guy decide whether criminals are guilty or not, and just execute them right there.

[Idealismania]

Censoring "bad opinions" is a violation of free speech, so no.

Anyway, the term "bad opinion" is relative. Any opinion could be deemed "bad" from different points of view.

exactly. Like pro-lifers think anything a pro-choice person says is a bad oppinion

[The British Peoples Republic]

*this comment has been censored by the goverment*

[Pyravar]

No. Bad opinions should be destroyed, not censored.

Yes defeat them with logic not tyranny. It was once a "bad" even "sinful" opinion that the earth went around the sun not the other way around. Look how that turned out.

[Conserative Morality]

I support the censorship and punishment of that kind of opinions.

Censorship and punishment create martyrs, which increase support. Best way to deal with idiots is by letting them be idiots in front of everyone. They'll only embarrass themselves and hurt their own cause.

[Birkinghamia]

Censoring "bad opinions" is a violation of free speech, so no.

Anyway, the term "bad opinion" is relative. Any opinion could be deemed "bad" from different points of view.

exactly. Like pro-lifers think anything a pro-choice person says is a bad oppinion

Or like how pro-lifers think that your generalization is a bad opinion.

[Northwest Slobovia]

That is because even the most illogical views can be made to seem logical with the right words.

Sointenly; those "right words" are called "rhetoric". It's very useful for arguing points when one hasn't any evidence or reasoning. For example:

People are easily swayed and tend to follow people who dont "conform" to beliefs that most people have.

Is a lovely bit of rhetoric, starting with a sweeping generalization, a gloss over a lack of facts -- "tend to follow"? oh, please -- and finally coming to rest on a lovely bit of word choice in "conform to beliefs that most people use".

Congratuations, sir, you've argued for censoring yourself!

[Kemaliste]

I support the censorship and punishment of that kind of opinions.

Censorship and punishment create martyrs, which increase support. Best way to deal with idiots is by letting them be idiots in front of everyone. They'll only embarrass themselves and hurt their own cause.

Well, the punishment/jailing saves the person from being lynched by people actually. Nobody can tolerate supporting of terrorism.

And no, the spreading of some opinions that may damage the state would be much more dangerous I think. They can easily manipulate people. They have to be silenced as soon as possible.

[Neutraligon]

What's a bad opinion

[Lessnt]

What's a bad opinion

Santa is bad for undercutting businesses.

[Conserative Morality]

Well, the punishment/jailing saves the person from being lynched by people actually. Nobody can tolerate supporting of terrorism.

And no, the spreading of some opinions that may damage the state would be much more dangerous I think. They can easily manipulate people. They have to be silenced as soon as possible.

That's why the KKK and the Neonazis have done so much damage here in the States, right? =/

[The Congregationists]

Who decides what is or isn't a "bad opinion" ?

This is it. While I don't think that truth is completely subjective, I think there's just too many gray areas to make the supression of "bad" ideas a feasable means of improving public debate. The danger will always surpass the benefits.

1) A "bad" idea may simply be an unpopular idea that's actually good and true. In suppressing it, we suppress what is good and true.
2) A "bad" idea may be an unpopular idea that's of mixed quality - some truth mixed in with falsehood. We still suppress what is good and true to the extent that this idea is suppressed and is, at least, partially true.
3) A "bad" idea may truly be a bad idea, but in allowing its expression as opposed to censoring it, we understand why it's a bad idea, and thus our understanding of what a "good" idea is deepens and improves because we see it in contrast to shoddy thinking. Censorship and demonization of bad ideas makes us intellectually lazy.
4) Our understanding of truth is constantly evolving. Censorship and stigmatization of ideas slows this process.

The remedy to a bad idea is a good idea. Of course, advancing and promoting good ideas takes more work and effort than relying on big brother to protect us from points of view we find distasteful or offensive, but that's kind of what democracy and freedom are all about. They take work and effort. Much like life itself. And it's also preferable to the alternative.

[Southern Babylonia]

No, we just need to fight political apathy.

[Ha Shi Ma]

No. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings...as long as it doesn't threaten the freedom of others.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I support free speech. I think it is one of our greatest freedoms that we have. However, there are some groups who use it to gather cult followings based on outright lies. You have all heard of them. There are people who think the earth is flat, people who think we never went to the moon, people who think dinosaurs and human beings walked among each other, people who STILL think Obama is a muslim.

It may be easy to dismiss it and say these people have no real influence on the world, but aside from the flat earth people, polls show that a significant percentage of the population believes in the other things stated. That is because even the most illogical views can be made to seem logical with the right words. People are easily swayed and tend to follow people who dont "conform" to beliefs that most people have.

Thats why ive been thinking, why should insane conspiracy theorists even have a voice when its so clear they they are wrong? Why not just censor/condemn it? If you have no proof to back up what you say or if science has disproven you, what good is your crazed point of view? Its ok to have an opinion, but it has to be a good one.

Although freedom of speech is not absolute, speech cannot and should not be censored or punished for being "wrong," "illogical," "crazed," contrary to science, "lies" (except for defamation), etc. "Bad speech" can and should be condemned -- but only by opposing speech.

As U.S. Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011) explains:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, "the point of all speech protection ... is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful." Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995). . . . "In public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate 'breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted).

Further wisdom on this topic comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Or the wisdom of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376-77 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. . . . Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.