Censorship

[Byrdie714]

That's not a nice comparison.

Mistyrose is right; please don't pick on her neighbor. We don't know what awful things he experienced on 9/11 at the Pentagon.

Probably no different than the Deaf New Yorkers at the WTC......

 

[Reba]

Having worked for the media, and having been in the military, I have a different take on some of this.

To me, generally, censorship means prohibiting a private individual's or private organization's free speech by government entities. Censorship is not so much keeping information and ideas "in" as it is making specific information and ideas non-existent.

In the military, classified information is not the same as censorship. Classified information is not information that was in the public domain in the first place. It has very strict guidelines as to what is deemed necessary to classify, to what degree, and for how long. Even people who have clearance aren't allowed to view that information unless they have a need to know. It is basically keeping information "inside."

Those are just my personal very broad descriptions.

 

[naisho]

In the military, classified information is not the same as censorship. Classified information is not information that was in the public domain in the first place. It has very strict guidelines as to what is deemed necessary to classify, to what degree, and for how long. Even people who have clearance aren't allowed to view that information unless they have a need to know. It is basically keeping information "inside."

But what about that UFO "classified information" junk? I think, though am not sure, that they were deemed as military information. I mean, I can understand that if they existed, the technology these UFOs had, and what the military obtained of them would become "classified" for R&D purposes to further progress their strength against another.

But, even if then if it is considered classified, should this technically be "censored" from the public just like Roswell was?

Note that I am not requesting about the existence of UFOs, much rather how the military and government handles that kind of information.

 

[Reba]

But what about that UFO "classified information" junk? I think, though am not sure, that they were deemed as military information. I mean, I can understand that if they existed, the technology these UFOs had, and what the military obtained of them would become "classified" for R&D purposes to further progress their strength against another.

But, even if then if it is considered classified, should this technically be "censored" from the public just like Roswell was?

Note that I am not requesting about the existence of UFOs, much rather how the military and government handles that kind of information.

I'm not a believer of UFO's, so I might be wrong person to ask. :P

Maybe it could be compared to the classification and secrecy that was used during America's development of the first nuclear bombs during WWII.

Something to think about: If the government/military is really hiding UFO information under such tight wraps, how come there is so much information about them and Roswell all over the place? It's not such a secret "secret," is it?

 

[Mistyrose]

Does he have a cell phone or PDA?

Maybe he just wants some rest and privacy.

We dont know if he has a cell phone or not, we never seen
him with one and we dont dare ask him as it is none of
our business.

 

[Jiro]

We used to call it NBC warfare.

for correction. I always get mixed up. damn government's obsession with 3-letters abbreviation.

 

[Jiro]

That's not a nice comparison.

Mistyrose is right; please don't pick on her neighbor. We don't know what awful things he experienced on 9/11 at the Pentagon.

it was just a harmless, humorous poking at his Luddite-like lifestyle...

 

[naisho]

Maybe it could be compared to the classification and secrecy that was used during America's development of the first nuclear bombs during WWII.

Yeah, basically what I was getting at is that there seems to be a sketchy line between R&D classified and "censored" in terms of what it exactly is, from what I can understand, and UFOs were the immediate example I could think of.

They'll "classify" technology in the hopes of having the information limited to themselves.. but as far as censoring this, perhaps it has its reasons too. As we're all afraid of China or Russia or even a N. Korea coupe that could develop some superior WMD to dent our nation.

 

[Jiro]

But what about that UFO "classified information" junk? I think, though am not sure, that they were deemed as military information. I mean, I can understand that if they existed, the technology these UFOs had, and what the military obtained of them would become "classified" for R&D purposes to further progress their strength against another.

But, even if then if it is considered classified, should this technically be "censored" from the public just like Roswell was?

Note that I am not requesting about the existence of UFOs, much rather how the military and government handles that kind of information.

because that so-called UFO sightings are the classified military prototypes

the 3 bright dots? silly.. it's the flares

 

[Reba]

Yeah, basically what I was getting at is that there seems to be a sketchy line between R&D classified and "censored" in terms of what it exactly is, from what I can understand, and UFOs were the immediate example I could think of.

They'll "classify" technology in the hopes of having the information limited to themselves.. but as far as censoring this, perhaps it has its reasons too. As we're all afraid of China or Russia or even a N. Korea coupe that could develop some superior WMD to dent our nation.

Here's the difference:

The government can classify the weapons technology, its development, and its deployment.

The government can censor public discussion of that weapons technology by people who are working on it but it can't censor public opinion or speculation about that weapons technology by people not working on it.

Suppose the USA government was developing an anti-matter weapon. The R&D of that weapon is classified. The people working on it aren't allowed to talk about it. However, newspaper editors can speculate and comment on anti-matter weapons. They can give their opinions, pro and con about such a weapon. People can form anti "anti-matter weapons" organizations, and hold rallies and make speeches against them. Hollywood can make movies about them using CGI that they dream up. Authors can write novels about their heroes protecting the weapons from the enemy.

 

[Byrdie714]

Here's the difference:

The government can classify the weapons technology, its development, and its deployment.

The government can censor public discussion of that weapons technology by people who are working on it but it can't censor public opinion or speculation about that weapons technology by people not working on it.

Suppose the USA government was developing an anti-matter weapon. The R&D of that weapon is classified. The people working on it aren't allowed to talk about it. However, newspaper editors can speculate and comment on anti-matter weapons. They can give their opinions, pro and con about such a weapon. People can form anti "anti-matter weapons" organizations, and hold rallies and make speeches against them. Hollywood can make movies about them using CGI that they dream up. Authors can write novels about their heroes protecting the weapons from the enemy.

Food to ponder.....

 

[Jiro]

Here's the difference:

The government can classify the weapons technology, its development, and its deployment.

The government can censor public discussion of that weapons technology by people who are working on it but it can't censor public opinion or speculation about that weapons technology by people not working on it.

Suppose the USA government was developing an anti-matter weapon. The R&D of that weapon is classified. The people working on it aren't allowed to talk about it. However, newspaper editors can speculate and comment on anti-matter weapons. They can give their opinions, pro and con about such a weapon. People can form anti "anti-matter weapons" organizations, and hold rallies and make speeches against them. Hollywood can make movies about them using CGI that they dream up. Authors can write novels about their heroes protecting the weapons from the enemy.

 

[naisho]

Here's the difference:

The government can classify the weapons technology, its development, and its deployment.

The government can censor public discussion of that weapons technology by people who are working on it but it can't censor public opinion or speculation about that weapons technology by people not working on it.

Suppose the USA government was developing an anti-matter weapon. The R&D of that weapon is classified. The people working on it aren't allowed to talk about it. However, newspaper editors can speculate and comment on anti-matter weapons. They can give their opinions, pro and con about such a weapon. People can form anti "anti-matter weapons" organizations, and hold rallies and make speeches against them. Hollywood can make movies about them using CGI that they dream up. Authors can write novels about their heroes protecting the weapons from the enemy.

Good way of putting it out. There's no flaws in that statement that I can immediately think of.

In regards to the censoring part, the only cause and effect I can see this doing is the public misconceiving the whole deal and creating an enormous non-controversial issue that is not actually in existence, like UFOs (shocker, isn't it!), time travel, infared satellite imaging, and so on. But that's their byproduct to handle, since they preferred not to enlighten people on it anyways.

Only thing that I can think of that either military or politicians (whomever that was in charge of this issue at that time) should've kept "censored" or from public were the Red scares several decades ago, as we saw the results of what happened.

 

[Reba]

...Only thing that I can think of that either military or politicians (whomever that was in charge of this issue at that time) should've kept "censored" or from public were the Red scares several decades ago, as we saw the results of what happened.

Can you elaborate on that please? I want to be sure I understand what you mean by "Red scares" and what should have been censored.

 

[naisho]

Can you elaborate on that please? I want to be sure I understand what you mean by "Red scares" and what should have been censored.

The Red scares, I'm sure as many of us who paid attention in US history in highschool or whenever in that department, where the situation depicted communists living in the US and the age of Joseph McCarthy"ism".

I recall it was said that the information was kept to government (or military, do not know which) where they had gathered evidence that would testify against these so called "reds" living in our country.
It was kept (classified, or censored?) until word leaked out to the press of what was going on. Someone in office took charge of it and let loose what was going on to the public, then the public started taking action themselves and accusing another of being a red. "Guilty of communism until proven innocent" ideas floating around.

I remember reading about a multitude of cases of individuals who were marked as a red, testified in court against another just for the hell of doing it, even without proper info - and as a result some were innocently jailed for that.

That's about it for history out take I have on it, but what I was trying to elaborate on earlier was how the public processed and mishandled the information: incorrectly accused, slander, libel all in the uproar of public insecurity.

 

[Reba]

The Red scares, I'm sure as many of us who paid attention in US history in highschool or whenever in that department, where the situation depicted communists living in the US and the age of Joseph McCarthy"ism".

Yes, I know about the Red Scare and McCarthyism. I lived thru part of that era. I just didn't know for sure how you were applying censorship to that.

I recall it was said that the information was kept to government (or military, do not know which) where they had gathered evidence that would testify against these so called "reds" living in our country.

Ah, "Reds", "Pinkos", and "fellow travelers;" I remember them well.

Government agencies, such as the FBI, collected information on suspected Communists.

It was kept (classified, or censored?) until word leaked out to the press of what was going on.

That would be classified information, "for official use only."

Someone in office took charge of it and let loose what was going on to the public, then the public started taking action themselves and accusing another of being a red. "Guilty of communism until proven innocent" ideas floating around.

There was a lot of paranoia around at that time, and some justified fear of Communists in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and China.

I remember reading about a multitude of cases of individuals who were marked as a red, testified in court against another just for the hell of doing it, even without proper info - and as a result some were innocently jailed for that.

Not quite "just for the hell of doing it." Some people testified out of fear, coercion, or vengeance. It was a serious matter.

That's about it for history out take I have on it, but what I was trying to elaborate on earlier was how the public processed and mishandled the information: incorrectly accused, slander, libel all in the uproar of public insecurity.

There was a lot of paranoia and suspicion, and very real fear of nuclear annihilation.

 

[Mrs Bucket]

That was the era no one left home without their tinfoil hats!

 

[naisho]

Yikes! I wasn't even born during that time.

While you guys lived through it in reality, all I did was listen to the boring Mr. Mac drone off in US History about Joseph McCarthy. It was hard to daydream or sleep through it, because every time he wanted to make a specific note or pass about anything in US history, he would raise his voice and start off exclaiming with a boom like he just gained 50 decibels. So I guess I had it easy.

How was it like living through it?

Did people do the "blackout curtains" - I think that's the name for pretending no one was home - stuff? Terminology came from WW2 I think.

Do you think the government should've censored it to prevent all that outbreak from happening or was it worth it to have?

 

[Beowulf]

The media is practically the fourth branch of our government. Information affects our thinking, and hence our actions. As you can gather, a very powerful tool indeed.

 

[Berry]

The government is not the only group that keeps secrets. Police, politicians, businesses, groups, organizations, societies, even families and individuals do.

If you choose to work for the government, police, or business then you are also agreeing to keep its secrets -- This is not censorship, this is a contract entered into by two parties. The chemist discussed earlier is not being censored, he is abiding by his contract.

If you choose to be a member in good standing of a society, group, or family then you should also respect and keep their secrets.

The rather complex discussion of what secrets they should be allowed to keep and why is a separate one from censorship.

Equally complex is a discussion of when and why those secrets should be exposed by a whistle blower.


Many organizations, religions, and cultures, including AD and my family, place limits on behavior, both physical and verbal, that are very real but in fact are not censorship. These entities cannot stop you from saying what you want, or doing what you want, but can and will disallow your membership within their group for violating the community ethic.

You are not going to remain a Mormon in good standing if you insist that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Nor would a Jehovah's Witness be well received in any Kingdom Hall if they were to run around telling everyone God's true name is Luigi.

Mind you, you can do these things, just don't do it in their house or on their time, and don't bother to wonder why they don't greet you with a hug.

But John Stuart Mill was not only concerned about government censorship. He was very concerned with the tyranny of the majority and with protecting the rights of minorities and minority beliefs and opinions. His position being that the tyranny of the majority is especially dangerous to individual liberty because the most commonly recommended remedy is to demand that the recalcitrant minority either persuade the majority to change its views or learn to conform to socially accepted norms.

While a group has the right to disown you as one of its members it has no right to demand you change your opinion.

While a church has the right to rail against homosexuals within the confines of their pulpits and the right to restrict its membership to heterosexuals it does not have the right to chase the poor gay guy down the street threatening him with bodily harm.

Media censorship does exist but after a lifetime of looking at it I can only reach one conclusion, in the free world it is not in the service of any group or ideal except one: The holy trinity of Ratings, Sales, and Income. It produces what ever commodity that will garner the largest sales figures, which translates into the largest readership for papers, listeners for radio, or viewers for television. In that pursuit it will print the truth, the whole truth, and anything but the truth.

I started reading it and as soon as I came up to that line.. I was really like :bsflag: at that comment too.

"

thereby making things easier for the ruling elite (easier, that is, for them to pursue their plans for global domination and enslavement of all human beings on the Earth). The successful promulgation of the official version of reality requires the suppression (censorship) of alternative versions."

If this is the foundation of his view on the whole thing, can you really take this seriously when this is in the first paragraph about censorship? I stopped after I read this and looked about the author:

"This Serendipity website is based on a libertarian (in the sense of J.S.Mill) perspective and is opposed to Fascism, Zionism, Capitalism, the New World Order and all who secretly work to cause wars for their own advantage and profit."

"Serendipity first went online in April 1996. It is the work of one person, Peter Meyer, and it contains his writings on topics of interest to him (and hopefully to others) and also the writings of many other people. From its earliest beginnings it has had sections on Maria Callas, Psychedelics, Censorship, the "War on Drugs", Common Errors (in English usage), Ganesh Baba (the psychedelic swami), the Waco Massacre, Liberty & Democracy, William Bramley's book The Gods of Eden, and the CIA."


I'm not bashing the topic of censorship, I realize and recognize that it is controversial, but I have to get the point across that the author is very biased, if you read the quotes I pasted. If anything, from what he said about his "about me" is enough for me to put the 'book down' and stop reading, or press that X.

.

Fact: Anyone who claims to hold a similar view to John Stuart Mill is GOING to be biased in exactly the same way the framers of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were. Mill was a radical freedom monger.

Does that mean the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be discounted because they are biased?

Also, I stand same on the view as Jiro regarding the spread of censored material. Some people seriously cannot handle the information they're told. A majority of the public is just clueless droids that will follow whatever they're told. They have no mind of their own

.

If this is true we should not allow the common person the right to vote or make any other decision -- Myself included -- Perhaps you as well. If they can't be trusted with the information needed to make the decision, how can they be trusted to make the decision?

This line cracked me up.

It just sounds so cartoonish! I almost expect it to say "Go, go, Power Rangers!"

.

By today's standards Mill himself sounds cartoonish, but having been born in London on May 20, 1806 it is a bit doubtful he ever heard of the Power Rangers.

I personally think the real questions are:

Should we be concerned about the level of censorship as it exists today?

Should we be concerned about the level of censorship as it may exist tomorrow?