Should bad opinions be censored?

[Free Pangea]

Anyone should be allowed to state their opinion, regardless of how ridiculous or unpopular it may be. To speak what you believe is a basic democratic freedom. Just make sure you're willing to take criticism for it (no matter how radical or moderate your view may be).
"Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilization." - Winston Churchill

[Gladia]

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.

If bad opinions should be censored...

[Utopia FTW]

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.

If bad opinions should be censored...

Touche!

[Free Pangea]

If the government should censor bad opinions...

Hitler a freedom hating fascist who is sending innocent people to concentration camps!

[Gladia]

If the government should censor bad opinions...

Hitler a freedom hating fascist who is sending innocent people to concentration camps!

Don't completely copy my joke/point or anything.

[Nornalhorst]

No. Censoring "bad" opinions isn't a wise move besides going against people's right to free speech censoring "bad" opinions can actually cause said opinions to grow stronger. An example of this one time I attended a religious university for about a year (I liked it but it was a bit pricey) during my stay there a group arose and attempted to start a homosexual paper naturally this was rejected by the admin but they did it anyway which was seen as outrageous by the administration and they banned and destroyed the paper but their actions caused alot of controversy and even some pro LGBT groups began to demonize the school for its actions. They handled the situation poorly in my opinion what they should have done was quietly get rid of the paper and just ignore it.

Now some information really does need to be censored like sensitive military intel, serious and detailed plans on how to assassinate someone (eg. president is going to have a speech you write a detailed analysis on the situation and the best angle of attack and give it to known terrorists) things of this nature should be censored.

Also who determines what opinions are bad? For example I do not believe in gay marriage and I believe homosexuality to be deviant behavior sort of like how I believe a man wanting to have sex with and marry his own mother is morally wrong. However many of the people here on NSG would disagree with me and call my opinions "bad" yet on another forum my opinions would be seen as "good" and in the US at least 50% of the population may agree with me. So my opinions being good or bad is merely subjective.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Of course it should be because that would greatly reduce [censored] in [censored] discourse by [censored]. Obviously it would have absolutely no negative effects on the [censored].

[Lord Tothe]

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

^this. Do you really want the political clowns to more easily punish you for disagreeing with them? Because, after all, they have bigger guns to back their opinions no matter how bad they are.

[Hittanryan]

No, definitely no. "Bad" opinions need only be disproven and defeated, not censored.

Besides, if you censored most of these conspiracy nuts it would only make them think they're onto something and they'd start yelling even louder, and nobody wants that.

[Hebalobia]

The problem is who decides what is and isn't a bad opinion? If all speech isn't protected, then none is protected.

[Neo Arcad]

If the government should censor bad opinions...

Hitler a freedom hating fascist who is sending innocent people to concentration camps!

<imagesnip>

Aw, fuck- Godwin's Law. Now the thread is over. Thanks a LOT, Free Pangea.

[Jolleus]

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 don't exactly believe that it's obvious that all of these people are wrong. For instance, I DO believe that primitive humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs. Just read this well-cited article: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... article=37 If you want to get to the good part, scroll about a third of the way down the page to the section that says "Evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted" in bold print and all-caps.

But, that's beside the point. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and unless the people voicing them are causing significant, direct harm, there is no reason to censor them. Who are you to decide that someone is an "insane conspiracy theorist?" One thing you said that particularly caught my eye:

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?

There are a lot of things people believe in that aren't backed up by proof. Are you going to censor all religion and belief in the paranormal? Are you going to censor Santa Claus? I mean, come on, let the people believe what they want. The populace needs to have the freedom to listen to whatever the hell they please. Censorship leads to a loss of personal freedom.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

No, definitely no. "Bad" opinions need only be disproven and defeated, not censored.

Besides, if you censored most of these conspiracy nuts it would only make them think they're onto something and they'd start yelling even louder, and nobody wants that.

I think there might be other reasons, like protecting natural rights, but whatever floats your boat.
"Bad" opinions are not just acceptable, they are imperative. If everyone agreed we would just become extremist and polarized [cough] Republican Party [cough]. Bad opinions put things in perspective.

[Tebowpolis]

The problem is that a "bad" opinion in your eyes may be a good opinion to me. That's a matter of opinion.
If by "bad" you mean "[i}offensive[/i]", then there are certain things that shouldn't be said, but since we have free speech, then people can say them.

[Krypsona]

Like my grandmother said "Opions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all stink".

[Hittanryan]

No, definitely no. "Bad" opinions need only be disproven and defeated, not censored.

Besides, if you censored most of these conspiracy nuts it would only make them think they're onto something and they'd start yelling even louder, and nobody wants that.

I think there might be other reasons, like protecting natural rights, but whatever floats your boat.
"Bad" opinions are not just acceptable, they are imperative. If everyone agreed we would just become extremist and polarized [cough] Republican Party [cough]. Bad opinions put things in perspective.

That was a joke.

EDIT: However, not all bad opinions are necessarily constructive. Take the debunked link between vaccines and autism. The kids are not only put at risk, but they allow the diseases they aren't vaccinated against to survive and remain a danger to humanity, instead of being eradicated like smallpox.

[Mushet]

Bad opinions are usually worth a good laugh

[Nazi Flower Power]

But Jews really DO control the media! It's not a Nazi lie, and I don't want my "conspiracy theory" to be censored! Why do you think 90% of all discussion on the Holocaust is about the Jewish victims even though they were only around half of the actual death toll? It's because Jews control the media.

[Nansurium]

Who decides which opinion is bad?

[Farnhamia]

Who decides which opinion is bad?

I used to do it but it's really boring. I think there's a group of people who have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole who do it now. It's part of their punishment.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I used to do it but it's really boring. I think there's a group of people who have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole who do it now. It's part of their punishment.

I'd actually like to have that job. I'm so overwhelmingly opinionated that it would preoccupy me all day.

[Farnhamia]

I used to do it but it's really boring. I think there's a group of people who have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole who do it now. It's part of their punishment.

I'd actually like to have that job. I'm so overwhelmingly opinionated that it would preoccupy me all day.

It was fun for a while, I have to admit, but after a couple of centuries, not so much. People's opinions are astonishingly banal.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I'd actually like to have that job. I'm so overwhelmingly opinionated that it would preoccupy me all day.

It was fun for a while, I have to admit, but after a couple of centuries, not so much. People's opinions are astonishingly banal.

I guess it depends on which couple of centuries. I mean, sure, if you got the depths of the Dark Ages, that would be pretty dull... but the Rennaissance, the Enlightenment, or the Reformation seem like they should have been pretty interesting.

Maybe you should have set up a hierarchy of censors, so you could leave most of the scut work to minions and only censor stuff worth at least half a brain cell on.

[Nazi Flower Power]

It was fun for a while, I have to admit, but after a couple of centuries, not so much. People's opinions are astonishingly banal.

I guess it depends on which couple of centuries. I mean, sure, if you got the depths of the Dark Ages, that would be pretty dull... but the Rennaissance, the Enlightenment, or the Reformation seem like they should have been pretty interesting.

Maybe you should have set up a hierarchy of censors, so you could leave most of the scut work to minions and only censor stuff worth at least half a brain cell on.

Or you could let us Nazis do it. We never get tired of censoring people!

[Euronion]

By censoring such groups you are only adding to their credibility, people will start to assume that you do not want these people to speak because what they are saying is true or had some credibility, there will always be crazy people and the best thing to do is just let them say their peace and ignore them, not to mention that the definition "Bad" is very vague and could be used for outright oppression