"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:494fccf3$1@news.povray.org...

> Chambers wrote:
> > After all, we remember Socrates precisely because he offended the
> > majority of his contemporaries (even calling himself society's gadfly,
> > annoying them with his criticisms until they changed).  Outspoken
> > "offenders" of history have always been an integral part of societal
> > change, from the Women's Suffrage movement, to the equal rights
> > campaigns in the 60s, to the fall of Communism in the 80s, and still
> > continue today.  And those are only in the last hundred years. going
> > back further, every major change in thinking has been preceded by
> > outspoken individuals who offended those around them.
>
> That's not a good argument. Or at least, it's an incomplete argument.
>
> If you want to invoke this, you have to provide a sense of all those
> people who did likewise and had a negative effect on society, which I
> suspect occurred much more frequently than the people you speak of.

Well said. I often use a quote from Sagan to those who presume that the more
outlandish, the more against-the-grain and the current thinking an idea is,
the more it has to have merit:

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo
the Clown."
Carl Sagan

Yes, freedom of expression is a good thing, but let's say it as it is, 99.9%
of all expression is worthless, even if it's (maybe especially if it's)
laced with vulgarities. I'd think one has to provide extraordinary evidence
to prove that YouTube moderating user comments would have a deletrious
effect on global culture and progress of humanity.

The other issue is that of a sense of entitlement. For whatever reason, we
believe we are able to say or do anything on the internet. But it's often a
priviledge, not a right. I don't pay for this newsgroup, neither do I pay to
maintain YouTube. It's their business. And if they chose to moderate their
user comments due to majority demand, which they need for business revenues,
crying freedom of speech isn't the best way to go about it.

Finally, freedom of expression has been much abused. It's about
decriminalizing expression (*), it's not about allowing all expression in
all circumstances or removing all consequences. It doesn't grant you to
disseminate trade secrets, or prevent a business from firing you if you
utter vulgarities to your customers. I don't think we often fully appreciate
what it is and what it is not.

(*) And even then it doesn't always protect all expression from criminal
considerations. Typical examples are shouting "fire" in a public place when
there is none, or promoting violence and hate. The only absolute rule is
that there are no absolutes.

Post a reply to this message