# Situations in which the truth should to be censored **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2016, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993 "2016-04-02T22:58:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2016, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/21 "2016-04-05T11:18:43Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > What facts (insulting, humiliating or otherwise) are being censored or suppressed? How about the D.C. Prostitute clientele list? ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/22 "2016-04-05T17:05:02Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Now, off the top of my head, I can only think of one type of speech, in America, that is currently banned even if factually true, and that is classified information that is sensitive to national security. I’m sure there are more other reasons though. Only people who have signed non-disclosure agreements are forbidden from discussing classified material. That’s why the NY times can publish stuff from snowden. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/23 "2016-04-05T17:09:40Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Gay marriage was a fringe issue nobody talked about 20 years ago. It was a minority issue 10 years ago. Lawrence vs Texas was in 2003. Let’s let that sink in for a moment. Just 13 years ago sodomy was still illegal in many places in the United States. Not only was gay marriage not legal, you could go to prison for having gay sex. In 2003. > > So you’d think that there could have been some social science going on about the causes of homosexuality. There are still lots of places that claim to be able to help people who struggle with homosexual attraction. What’s the track record on those places? Pretty dismal. They used to be able to claim to turn people straight, and when that turned out to be false they’ve changed to claiming to be able to help people with homosexual attraction to not act on those attractions. > > So why didn’t those places, with thousands of motivated people trying to understand and change homosexual attraction, figure it out? If it’s so obvious to you what causes homosexual attraction, why couldn’t the conservative doctors who ran the conversion therapy camps figure it out? So let’s forbid anyone from ever trying again… ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/24 "2016-04-06T12:30:14Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Now, off the top of my head, I can only think of one type of speech, in America, that is currently banned even if factually true, and that is classified information that is sensitive to national security. I’m sure there are more other reasons though. I can think of a few more situations where publicly revealing accurate information may get you in trouble. Most of them are situations when the information has been given to you under the condition of confidentiality. Examples would be giving away your company’s trade secrets, breaking doctor-patient confidentiality or warning criminals that they are being investigated. Another instance where factual accuracy does not protect you from censorship are obscenity laws. Certain content, regardless of its factual accuracy may not be published unless it can be ensured that access is restricted to adults. There have been instances where people have publicly displayed intimate pictures or videos of their exes after a failed relationship. That is illegal. I am not sure, if the verbal equivalent - i.e. verbally describing intimate details such as physical traits or sexual preferences - is also illegal, but if it is done with the intention to hurt the person described, I consider it to be unethical. “Hate speech” may at times contain factual information, but that information is not usually what qualifies it as hate speech, so I suppose it is not relevant to this debate. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/25 "2016-04-06T12:55:18Z")
A couple of years ago I left a bar, and while walking to my car I walked by a fairly obvious unmarked car with a guy in the vehicle who appeared to be surveiling the bar. I walked back into the bar and made an announcement. “ATTENTION Y’ALL: there is an unmarked police car parked on the street with a guy inside watching this place.” All sorts of discussion started. The guy working the register was sure he was being investigated for allowing people to carry out too many ounces at a time. Someone suggested that maybe one of the customers was in some sort of legal trouble. Some folks thought I must be paranoid, so a group of guys walked outside. I pointed, “See? That dark green car with the black wall tires?” I _don’t think_ I broke any laws, but folks at the bar still laugh about that day. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/26 "2016-04-06T16:42:46Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > A couple of years ago I left a bar, and while walking to my car I walked by a fairly obvious unmarked car with a guy in the vehicle who appeared to be surveiling the bar. > > … > > I _don’t think_ I broke any laws, but folks at the bar still laugh about that day. IANAL, but “obstruction” and “interfering with a police officer” come to mind. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/27 "2016-04-06T16:54:15Z")
Attorney / client privilege Protection of intellectual property Doctor / patient confidentiality Personal or private information Information that has no useful purpose but to insult or hurt someone else’s feelings (really more self censorship) Hate speech Spoilers for this season of Game of Thrones ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/28 "2016-04-06T16:56:22Z")
I believe the Supreme Court covered that last one in the previous session. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/29 "2016-04-06T17:00:50Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > IANAL, but “obstruction” and “interfering with a police officer” come to mind. [Federal judge rules drivers allowed to flash headlights to warn of speed traps.](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/05/federal-judge-rules-drivers-allowed-to-warn-other-motorists-speed-traps.html) > [@](#): > > A federal judge in Missouri ruled this week held that drivers have a First Amendment right to flash their headlights to warn other motorists of nearby police and speed traps. > > But Autrey said in his ruling that the flashing of headlights \*\*“sends a message to bring one’s driving in conformity with the law \*\*— whether it be by slowing down, turning on one’s own headlamps at dusk or in the rain, or proceeding with caution.” ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/30 "2016-04-06T18:52:05Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Attorney / client privilege > Protection of intellectual property > Doctor / patient confidentiality > Personal or private information > Information that has no useful purpose but to insult or hurt someone else’s feelings (really more self censorship) > Hate speech > Spoilers for this season of Game of Thrones > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I believe the Supreme Court covered that last one in the previous session. Ah, but does that ruling cover the season what was current during that last session, or does it set a precedent for what is the now current season? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/31 "2016-04-06T19:04:43Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > IANAL, but “obstruction” and “interfering with a police officer” come to mind. I shared an observation with some friends, as **running coach** noted.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/32 "2016-04-06T19:35:19Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > IANAL, but “obstruction” and “interfering with a police officer” come to mind. If the occupant of the unmarked vehicle was not uniformed, it is entirely possible that he was a private investigator. I doubt that it is against the law to reveal that there is some person of undetermined credentials watching the place, because such a person could just be a hired dick. How can you tell? ---
**Author:** ![Carryon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Carryon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carryon)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/33 "2016-04-06T22:12:04Z")
The difference is between content and speech. For example, I recall seeing a great movie from the 40s, I believe it was “Wake Island” or something like that, it was about a bunch of marines. Anyway what I found funny was it was a great movie, told a great story but was devoid of cuss words and foul language. Yet it got the message across clearly so well, you didn’t notice it. Now come on, a bunch of marines fighting the Japanese in WWII are certainly going to cuss and use foul language but the movie was well written and acted enough that you didn’t need that. It’s one thing to censor words another to censor their content and meaning. Also there is a time and a place for everything and people need to re-learn this. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/34 "2016-04-07T00:38:33Z")
The only thing I can think of is video or audio that was taken w/o the consent of the person being recorded. If someone videotapes you naked w/o your consent, that should be censored. Other than that and national security I can’t think of anything that would justify censorship. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/35 "2016-04-07T18:39:45Z")
“Does this dress make me look fat?” ---
**Author:** ![CCitizen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CCitizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CCitizen)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/36 "2016-04-14T23:24:47Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Can anyone think of a reason why government, schools, etc. should be able to ban speech if (A) that speech is non-classified and not about national security; (B) is factually true? Any private information. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/37 "2016-04-15T01:06:10Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > IANAL, but “obstruction” and “interfering with a police officer” come to mind. Kayaker’s actions were equivalent to someone using the WAZE app to report the location of speed traps. I’m quite certain it’s not illegal, but you might find some overzealous cop willing to arrest you for it, and / or an overzealous DA willing to prosecute you for it, like nearly happened in the “flashing headlights” case. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/39 "2016-10-26T05:36:10Z")
Spam reported ( **jack244** ). Or, at any rate, the post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/40 "2016-10-26T10:18:46Z")
There is [evidence](http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf) (PDF) that when people suspect free will is an illusion they act in more selfish, unethical ways. [Again.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141628) One could have a discussion on whether philosophers, researchers and publications should self-censor these results or any evidence or persuasive arguments that free will doesn’t exist or instead attempt to educate the public about the effect in an attempt to counter it. I’m not aware of any studies showing if that works. Roy Baumeister: > [@](#): > > Some philosophical analyses may conclude that a fatalistic determinism is compatible with highly ethical behavior, but the present results suggest that many laypersons do not yet appreciate that possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993/41 "2016-10-26T15:18:24Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Actually I think I have seen more censorship of truth from the right than from the left. > > Preventing doctors from suggesting abortion as an option, Preventing pediatricians from discussig the dangers of guns in the house, preventing the release of global warming studies doen by the EPA, preventing the CDC from studying gun related deaths, etc. Political correctness didn’t start out as censorship but it has become a form of censorship, particularly for unorthodox liberals. And I’m sure people will jump in but the medical professions disproportionate focus on guns is a villianization of guns. There have been threads on this board about how doctors will discuss the dangers of guns but not the dangers of having a back yard pool when the danger posed by a back yard pool are much higher than the danger posed by owning a gun. I am not familiar with restrictions on the EPA releasing global warming studies. I was under the impression that they released a pretty big one when they started regulating carbon as a pollutant. The CDC is not prevented from studying gun related deaths. You’ve been lied to. The CDC is prevented from promoting or advocating for gun control, they have decided to steer clear of the subject matter until Obama recently directed them to study gun violence. Many long time members of the CDC will at admit they handled gun research poorly before the ban on advocacy was put in place. Research by a government agency should not have the promotion of a particular policy as an end goal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-in-which-the-truth-should-to-be-censored/750993.md?page=3)