Censorship or not

So Amnesty warns us about censorship in the internet. And while they are telling us that censorship is bad, they are also saying that some censorship is OK. According to Amnesty, it's OK to censor racist websites and the like. So... who exactly decides what is OK to censor and what is not? Governments (like in China)? Corporations? Some organisations (like Amnesty International or.... Aryan Nations? What? Why the former but not the latter?)?

So, are they against censorship or not? If they are against it, they should accept the fact that some people might say things that they disagree with. You are not really opposing censorship, if you are basically saying "you are free to say whatevery you please, just as long as you say things I approve of". And here we have Amnesty telling us that online-censorship is bad. Unless they are censoring things Amnesty opposes, then it's suddenly OK. I'm sorry, but it doesn't quite work that way.

If we agree that censoring racists and revisionists is OK, then we are basically turning them in to martyrs. And is censorship ever the right way to promote progress? What if the person we are censoring happens to be right, but his opinions and thoughts just happen to be not politically correct? No, I'm not saying that David Irving (for example) is right, but is it right or smart to say that "there is to be no discussion about the Holocaust. It happened, and everyone who disputes it will be thrown to jail!". The cynic in me could start thinking "why are they so serious about that? Are they trying to hide something?".

The best way to combat prejudices and ignorance is through facts. Yes, there are people who dispute the Holocaust. No, trying to force them to shut up does nothing to change their viewpoint on the matter, quite the contrary. The way to do that is through facts and open discussion. After all, if the history we know is true, what do we have to worry? We can just present the facts to the opposition. It's the same with racists and other weirdoes.

No comments: