Think Again about Censorship with Christopher Hitchens

[reanimated6]

Censoring any opinion will distort the zeitgeist of the nation, making it an illusion. The only way a healthy and free society can maintain itself is through the rigorous debate of it's citizens.

[belltocher]

i'm sorry that information is not available to the general public, please don't hesitate to contact us again as we are always pleased to help you..

[belltocher]

Censorship is a tool used only by dictatorships to maintain control

[SeventhRisk]

H.R. 3261 SOPA

[CenkIsAdorable]

That's all fine and all Hitchens, I just want to know when I'll be able to see boobs on tv before 10pm

[killer3596]

The woman at the end is way off. I say let people read that stupid holocaust denial bullshit along with anything else that's equally pointless. How else will they ever be able to spot bullshit unless they've read both the profound works as well as the unsupportable, nonsensical psychobabble of charlatans? It's right back to Hitchens' point all over again. Who's going to determine what's good versus what's bad? People like her have no faith in society's ability to discern garbage from value.

[killer3596]

They forgot North Korea on the list of filtering countries. It filters to the extreme.

[Soundgarden8497]

@killer3596 north korea filters filters

[2edsajdmsa]

We need to get the Australian government to watch this!

[TheGreatDeciever55]

hate speech should absolutely be allowed----becuase lets be honest...usually hate speeches are the easiest to disect, ridicule, and are incredibly easy to void of validity----we should allow hate speech---for if anyone feels such things in their heart---they should hear others express them aswell--which in turn would lead them to hear others eliminate the credibility of such speeches..this is terribly simple logic...

[luc59457]

@TheGreatDeciever55 Well said

[EllyMcCormack]

Eventually we are going to have to rely on the individual to decide for himself what he should deny himself and what he should take in.

[AspiringPotato]

Those revisionist history books are the most effective means for showing even mildly educated people what a pack of morons the factions that publish them are.

[SPEAKEZE2]

THE HIGH PRIESTS of Atheism, including Vanity Fair's starchild Christopher Hitchens, can never duplicate or demonstrate ONENESS. If U read their literature -take the brilliant British scientist Stephen Hawking's THE GRAND DESIGN (presumably HIS!) U will eventually stumble upon their simplistic equation, namely, that: "NOTHING=NOTHING", DUH?

[AspiringPotato]

@SPEAKEZE2

your criticisms = nothing

[goamerica76]

@SPEAKEZE2 Oneness? What are you talking about? It just seems like a word that means something deep while in reality it has no meaning. Also, using all caps in your comment immediately makes you kind of a dick.

[VideoMenu]

5:19 -This is a curious list... South Korea filters, but North Korea doesn't appear at all?

I suspect there was probably a human error there. I'm not saying SK doesn't filter, but the list is odd contrasted with reality.

[AspiringPotato]

@VideoMenu

North Korea probably doesn't filter. They just cut off the information flow entirely.

[Justen1980]

i managed to get through school only reading too kill a mockingbird

[Neanderthalcouzin]

I would like to know how Hitchens reconciles his criticism of censorship with his statements on wikileaks. When Hitch is talking about censorship in this video, imagine hes talking about wikileaks. It isnt hard.

Also, the top voted comment above from Thomas Jefferson is really not true: reductio ad absurdum is not only not the only weapon against stupidity, if overused it is really a logical fallacy. What you actually want is education, not ridicule.

[dudesonman4200]

@Neanderthalcouzin

I assume that if lives were imminent danger, then it would be best shut up. Clearly some of the information wikileaks provides will severly compromise the state of affairs in the middle east and around the world politically as well as militarily. If someone held a gun to your head and said "If you say this, Ill kill you", then I personally would promote that sort of censorship. Remember though, if and only if lives are in imminent danger.

[belltocher]

If you are against kiddy porn being avalable to sickos then you are for censorship. Now that's a tough pill to swallow.

[shyshadeofwater]

@belltocher I wouldn't say so. Child pornography isn't exactly "readily available" because we censor it, but because we make it illegal. Of course, child pornography is still made and there is a deplorable demand for it, but it's not popular only because we censor it or make it illegal, but because most people find it immoral, wrong, or distasteful. Nothing to do with the legality of it. Laws do not change or determine behavior, it simply calls behavior or acts "crimes".

[VideoMenu]

@belltocher

Being against child pornography isn't censorship. It's against child abuse.

It's anti-abuse/pro-child, not anti-availability/anti-freedom­.

 You're a sicko if you don't see the originating factor there.

[Pervyable]

@belltocher

Kiddy porn is illegal because it involves the(most times violent) coercion of children, it has nothing to do with free speech or freedom of expression in any way.

[MartinJWillett]

@Pervyable What about material which consists of drawings copied from and styled after other drawings whose production may not have involved any real children in any form ever? Material such as this is banned in several countries. Images which have been transmitted from one man's imagination to another without anybody involving a real child at all, this is still regarded as if it were photographs of child rape directly commissioned by the person who owned the computer it was found on.

[Pervyable]

@MartinJWillett

I assume you're talking about "virtual kiddie porn"? I see no problem with someone having it, so long as it indeed remains virtual and never uses any real children. If no real person is harmed in any way by it then I don't see a justification for banning it.

[MassExtinctionEvent]

There is no grey area when it comes to censorship. Say you censor nothing: then no matter how dumb a statement someone makes, there's always going to be someone to tell them they're being an idiot. If you disallow people from making foolish statements, they'll still think these things but nobody will challenge them on it because nobody knows they're thinking it.

It's patently ridiculous to deny people the right to speak against popular opinion. if we did that, we never would've evolved this far.

[w119bjk]

"Three ways that censorship affects are modern world" Learn English

[cakeisnotanumber]

@w119bjk Are you trying to censor someone?

[w119bjk]

@cakeisnotanumber - If telling someone to learn grammar is censoring, then yes, I am.

[cakeisnotanumber]

@w119bjk Fair enough. However you missed a period from one of your previous sentences in a previous comment. So be careful when accusing others.

[equsnarnd]

It is a solvable issue and easily so. The freedom to read material does not extend to what you think is desirable but to ALL material no matter how offensive. Period. Case closed.

[renotuff]

germany limits content about ww2 , which is pretty stupid , arent people suppose to learn from the past

[freakystyley4000]

@renotuff - Japan does the same thing (both in text and (((I AM guessing))) online forms)... it IS because of National Shame that these countries don't inform or educate their youth regarding WWII.

[DevoutSkeptic]

Either it's all okay, or none of it is.

[crabbieappleton]

Honestly, I feel like censoring Catcher in the Rye. 'Tis a silly book.

[OhMyGoddlessGamer]

@crabbieappleton huh? screw that i like my catcher in the rye

[trailofdeadpeople]

with true liberty comes excess; there is no authority in the world which can state where the boundaries of free speech, expression and opinion are.

[biomanwin]

@planetdarwin

Exactly, let people like Pat Robertson say that the people in Haiti made a deal with the devil which caused the earthquake. All that did was make him look like more of a total nutcase.

[Nexius8]

5:25 add Australia to that list if a proposed law gets passed.

[brassbanjo]

The most difficult thing I find to deal with are people that say they stand for free speech, go to free seech rallies etc, but then vote FOR hate speech legislation!

[clifftonjohnson]

you can't argue both sides though... to say that we should be free to information, except for these couple things that are really nasty, you've just become the censor. those who argue that are for the censorship, even if they don't realize it.

[blacbraun]

@clifftonjohnson I think that is the crux of the argument as Hitchens pointed out too. When it comes down to deciding who has the power to decide for us what we can read or hear and what we can't , we realize nobody is good enough to do that so we all must be our own censor and decide what we wish to read and hear.

[SourcesAreEverything]

"Ridicule is the only weapon against stupidity."

-Thomas Jefferson

[lexaling]

@SourcesAreEverything Jefferson never said that. He said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

[highlanderdurp]

@SourcesAreEverything "i like nothing more than sitting on my porch looking out on my hemp fields" George Washington

[luc59457]

@SourcesAreEverything Good quote, to a certain extent

[oneetatsu]

the only sites that shold be banned are child porn and myspace/facebook ...socialnetworking sites

[crotuca]

Just for the record, let me say that yes, racist and Nazi sites should be allowed. The option of censorship, which will certainly be abused to block good material, is much worse.

[temp123ify]

What happened to freedom of speech if they are going to censor everything then what is the point of freedom of speech? If we get freedom of speech might as well ban censoring! I love freedom of speech but I hate people censoring everything we say!

[cristop5]

Censorship cannot stop nonsense, and there are too few rational people to do so. Even if there were reason rarely prevails. Any idiot idea can get legs if it has the right ingredients.

Although there is no such organization as the New World Order, millions of people embrace the idea of it and use it to interpret all political events.

[trocknickel]

and the award for the opinion most mirroring my own goes to you.... Thanks for that

[DreadfulSolemnity]

Malfeassant Expurgation

[scorpionkings]

There should NEVER be censorship on any books or speeches of any kind! CENSORSHIP should be banned! Nobody has the right to tell others what they can read, look at or listen to..

[eqsmooth]

FOX NEWS "ANCHORS" Hannity, Beck and O'reilly should be censored, tried, imprisoned and eventually deported along w/ Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, Laura Ingraham, Coulter, Palin. There are many others. Rupert Murdoch? I can't say what should be done with him and any of his family mebres who work for Newscorp.

[1LTPETE]

I would throw you into the crematoria right along with them.

[eqsmooth]

@1LTPETE WHY?

[polymath7]

Why?

Pinhead.

[eqsmooth]

Why?. Listen, you arrogant son of a bitch who has reached the limit of his vocabulary, because the world would be a better place and I'd have less to complain about. You can join the list. Make up your own quotes and leave the gay atheist alone. Doink.

[polymath7]

Is this said without irony?

You're not grasping the concept of free speech are you?

As Bertrand Russel observed, the impetus to censor is the fear that unrestricted discourse will lead to the wrong conclusion, and that the truth must therefore be ensured through enforced silence. This is invariably a greater evil than those it seeks to cure.

I for one take far greater satisfaction in seeing demagogues, when possible, crushed, ridiculed, discredited, and humiliated in open debate.

[faraz1729]

But if they're censored, we won't be able to ridicule them. That is a diversion I and many others quite enjoy.

[eqsmooth]

Good point. Fox is entertaining in a scary way. NPR/PBS is the only network close to fair & balanced. But most people like the way Fox "spices" the news up. They take it as news/journalism but absolutely don't care that Ailes and Murdoch require that the "anchors", talk show hosts lie and manipulate "stories". It is simply an engineered fear machine. I don't have an opinion on internet censorship because I don't know anything about it, but Fox is way outta line So I fight the good fight.

[dasweets]

there is no such thing as good censorship ... simply put the thought police has no place in controlling the minds of any individual and that which that person wishes to study.  If there is a corelation between activities unless the viewing/thinking/saying affects everyone in the same way the most any work/piece can do is exacerbate the latent tendencies of those who violate a society's laws and social norms. Combat such violations through appropriate measures, not thought control.

[BARCACROSSESTHEALPS]

I remember when some school districts banned Harry Potter. Currently, there are none, though. But, public libraries and bookstores don't ban in the US. Here you can still buy copies of the Turner Diaries, and it did directly relate to inspiring the OK City bombings. School districts, while some are insane, are executing their civic rights, too. "Freedom for" and "freedom from"; it's a two way street. I think Americans and Canadians overall do a pretty good balancing act.

[blacbraun]

@BARCACROSSESTHEALPS The US at least presently seems to uphold it's 1st amendment pretty well but in Canada these so called Hate laws and Provincial Human rights tribunal are a complete mockery of Free Speech that men and women have died for and they sicken me to no end.

[blacbraun]

@BARCACROSSESTHEALPS The US at least presently seems to uphold it's 1st amendment pretty well but in Canada these so called Hate laws and Provincial Human rights tribunal are a complete mockery of Free Speech that men and women have died for and they sicken me to no end.

[10mintwo]

Glad to live in the US where this shit just doesn't fly. There may be stupid local school districts censoring the odd book now and then, but the federal government doing the same is literally inconceivable. Thank you first amendment!!

[jpaliwal]

It has happened here. What do think the WWI free speech cases were about? The Palmer Raids, the Espionage Acts, etc. Eugene Debs was sentenced for 20 years for things that he said and only ended up doing 3 b/c of a presidential pardon. Don't be so sure that it can't happen again.

[AlmightScoop]

Actually, the US is one of the countries that does have some filtering of internet content. Along with most of the western countries that do it, they forbid access to sites known to contain child pornography, for which I am grateful. Whilst there are many contentious issue with internet censorship, I think this one is pretty clear cut.

[10mintwo]

I am not aware that's the case. If the FBI sees you down/uploading child porn, you can go to jail but there is no "forbidden access list" that prevents internet users from accessing any websites here.

[Graphic36]

The U.S. government restricts access to nothing on the internet whatsoever. There isn't even a system in place that would make that possible.

[AlmightScoop]

Well, there was an article in New Scientist recently, with a world map, with contries ranked according the their degree of internet censorship, in 4 catagories. The US didn't censor 3 of them (political content, conflict and security, internet tools), but did have selective censorship of social content. Plus, Bush set up a system to monitor e-mails without a warrant. Its just what I read, and New Scientist is usually quite accurate.

[Graphic36]

They must have been talking about public schools, which I'd support (13 year olds shouldn't be able to watch porn in the high school library), or the computers of government agencies.

Other than that, no, it just doesn't happen. Even popular websites that host illegal activities like piracy and gambling sites are totally free to enter. Personal internet access in the U.S. is not subject to censorship by the government in any shape or form.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

It's not so clear cut when the US government makes you prove you are innocent.

Your point of view is how fascism starts. You get a little taste of it, and your lazy moral intellect is tickled by the idea of having an autocratic government stomping on something for you without due process.

[starguts]

Nothing should be censored, ever for any reason.

Free speech is not really free speech unless it is really free...

The only filters on the flow of information should be educated individual citizens making personal decisions.

[plimbuff]

What about in schools? Should Teachers be able to teach false history?

[starguts]

Teachers are paid professional instructors that help students learn a curriculum that is based on the consensus in a field of study. If a teacher can not do her job, then I imagine she would be fired.

Intellectual consensus in a field is reached by ruthless evidence based reasoning and peer-review. This inevitably leaves room for bad ideas and false information to slip through, which is why it is so important for free speech to be absolute, so that the consensus may always be questioned.

[plimbuff]

You're right.

[blacbraun]

@plimbuff  History is a myth than men agree upon ...Napoleon Bonaparte

[twosixteen]

@starguts What about child pornography? 

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

Well done.

[kingpants1986]

great vid man

[greycloud24]

at the end with her statements on the neo-nazi's with "did six million really die?" being censored or "far worse stuff still out there", i don't think this should be censored.

in my opinion the ONLY stuff that should be consored are those shown to be highly correlated or proven to be causual in creating crimes.

and i don't believe in victimless or non-consentual crimes either.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

Highly correlated?

So, the first fascist weighs in on this video.

[greycloud24]

drinking and driving does not cause automobile accidents. it is however highly correlated.

causual factors will always result in the occurance, correlational will show a relationship with the occurance.

i am not a facist, i am highly liberal.

[BigMikeMcBastard]

You're a fool.