If that standard had been in place earlier, we would have suppressed the idea of plate tectonics. In the old Soviet Union, the ‘experts’ were so certain of the scientific legitimacy of Communism that to oppose it was considered to be a mental health issue and could get you locked up. Earlier, the church was considered expert on issues of faith, and heresies could get you in big trouble. They still can in some parts of the world.
We have an extensive history of ‘experts’ getting big issues wrong. And under a censorship regime, those wrong ideas can last a very long time because the alternatives are suppressed.
And as people attempt to claim ‘expertise’ over what are impenetrable complex systems, listening to them and freezing out their critics is a really dangerous thing to do. Free speech is the inly corrective to ‘official’ speech that is nonetheless wrong.
How many people here want Donald Trump and his minions deciding what is and isn’t ‘valid’ speech? Again, forget about the best case scenario for censorship. Think about the worst, because it’s more likely.
And free speech is MORE important to minorities. When the right was dominant in America, free speech was a core principle of the left. Now that they control the commanding heights, suddenly censorship is on the table again. But I guarantee you, the worm turns and you won’t like the new rules you set up when the other side gets to use them.
I’m not talking about the forceful censoring of dissenting views in the style of Pope Urban VIII against Galileo. I’m talking about those with dissenting or minority views being allowed to force the experts to teach their minority views. Forcing Dr. Fauci to give equal time to vaccine deniers isn’t anti-censorship. Forcing a biology professor to teach Noah’s Ark isn’t anti-censorship. The scientific community for the most part (unless we get back to medieval popes, Nazis, and Soviets and such) doesn’t support shutting down dissenting views. They support getting those to with dissenting views to show their evidence, and those that do (Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc.) have their views become the new accepted prevailing theory. If the evidence turns out to not support the dissenting view, then it’s ignored. That ignoring of a dissenting view lacking evidence to support it doesn’t, IMHO, count as censorship.
I didn’t know we switched to teaching. The thread is about censorship. Choosing what subjects go into a lesson plan is not censorship.
Censorship would be refusing to publish a paper that is technically accurate, but has information you don’t want people seeing, or draws conclusions you don’t like.
Short of national security matters like the Manhattan project and the related science around nuclear fission, I’m not aware of any reputable scientific journals that censor in that manner. Of course they do conduct their peer reviews and they won’t publish obviously flawed papers. But refusing to publish a study that was done correctly with conclusions the publisher doesn’t like, assuming it’s within the subject matter of the journal (not something silly like trying to publish a quantum mechanics paper in the New England Journal of Medicine)? I’m not aware of any such examples.
While I agree that there is not always a hard and fast line between self-censorship and government censorship, I find the essay doesn’t really help delineate between legitimate self-censorship and illegitimate kinds. It declares “political correctness” and the like to not be censorious, but doesn’t explain why. (And I say that even though I agree in general.) And then I think it is off base with identifying movie ratings as being about censorship simply because they include a prominent statement at the beginning of the rating.
I think the Hugo Award issue actually makes for a good example. It’s clear that what they did was wrong. But it also seems to be self-censorship. The problem arises in that it was self-censorship motivated by beliefs about government censorship. The arguments were all about how China would react. So I’d argue that, rather than actually being self-censorship, it is actually a form of government pre-censorship.
That’s what regimes can do. They get you to censor based on fear of consequences that they provide. They are still enforcing it using soft power instead of hard power. They are getting you to pre-censor your work.
Yet this censorship action was ultimately the Hugo Awards deciding who should be eligible for the award. That’s something all awards have to do. The difference is that they do so based on the publicly stated purpose of the award. It isn’t about avoiding getting in trouble, but for the same reasons why people value the Hugo Awards in the first place.
That’s the difference. It’s a difference that many who cry censorship so often don’t seem to get.
He’s probably taking about topics in race realism. There’s a strong current in conservativism that the “truth” about races and intelligence/criminality etc is getting censored by the woke scientific community.
One example of self-censorship that comes to mind is the movie 2012, that was supposed to show the world encountering total disaster that year, and the director originally had a scene planned that would show the Mecca holy site of the Kaaba and whatnot being destroyed, but then cut it out because, in his words, “I don’t need a fatwa against my head.”
There might be a bit of a misconception of what actually constitutes „censorship“ of all things Nazi in Germany. In an artistic context, people can (and do) show swastikas, Nazi uniforms and everything else all day long. (There was a time when games like Castle Wolfenstein had to be altered for the German market; because video games were not considered „art“ at the time. That time is over now, though…) It’s not prohibited to talk about Nazis. You can read „Mein Kampf“ if you wish. Nobody is going to jail for saying: „But Hitler built the Autobahn.“
What you cannot do is walk down the street with a Nazi uniform, or display a swastika tattoo, or give the Nazi salute, or shout „Sieg Heil!“ - again, outside of a work of art. There are also laws against (prolonged and insistent) Holocaust denial, and I consider that to be a good thing. This is not something that „the government“ imposes upon us, but a consensus that is shared by (hopefully) 95+ % of Germans. It is written into our constitution, and for good reason. You might think „Sunlight is the best disinfectant.“, but I, and many other Germans, also consider the Paradox of tolerance, so - fuck the Nazis and let them rot in jail, because their ideological forefathers plunged Germany and the world into the worst catastrophe of the 20th century. Don’t give them an inch, because they will take it and exploit it.
By the way, the sign the kids are holding says „We are working in the school garden“ and seems to have nothing to do with the book burning.
I find it really bizarre that there were apparently book burnings in East Germany, given the government‘s extreme pride in being very anti-fascist, not like those other people in the West.
This is the same reason Penn Teller said they’d never cover the Quran on their show Penn & Teller: Bullshit. A lot of groups used to steer clear of criticism of Scientology because they were known to be letigious and willing to use unetheical and possibly illegal methods of attacking their critics. Though more people seem willing to go after Scientology these days.
I‘m aware. It’s just that you’d think that the extreme proximity (spatial as well as temporary - same country, 10 years after the end of the war) to the Nazi book burnings would have occurred to someone. It’s like they’re not even trying to conceal that they’re using the same tactics as their purported enemies.
I’d say it occurred to someone alright. Looks like they are pretty well trained up. Lots of practice. The important thing is they learn to obey! (and only read or consume approved materials. Stay safe!)
I may be misunderstanding you here and what you mean by „Stay safe“ - but are you seriously comparing Nazi-style book burnings with current-era German laws against Holocaust denial and Nazi insignia? Because in that case I don’t really know what to say (in this forum).