Public's censorship

Relating to the discussion we had in class about censorship. I feel that today’s class proved my point very well. My point was that the public’s censorship of certain material is more efficient and makes the person being censored more settled with the fact that he is being censored. My argument is that if it a government or a despot choosing what is being censored, it is going to be one absolute truth whereas if it the public opinion doing the censuring it will be more fair and less absolute, because the public consists of multiple opinions. To dispute Mill’s point about tyranny of the majority when no legislation is made there is no absolute and the “majority” will be a fluid one as opposed to a fixed one. The majority is a multitude, and its opinion will change from issue to issue.

Today we started talking about how the denial of historical events should be censured, in this case Holocaust. I do agree that the Holocaust happen and I to some extent agree that denying should be censured. However the method of censuring should not be legislation. Legislation is to me the worst tyranny. It is like when your parents tell you that you can’t smoke. You ask them why and instead of bringing a reasonable argument they say, because we say so. Laws are like these rules that have to be obeyed and there is not much room for questioning them. What does the child do when confronted with such a tautology? He revolts, he begins to think that he knows better. And in this way get pushed towards what his parents didn’t want him to do, he starts smoking. Making a very bold statement for the sake of my argument, people who are leaning towards nazism, are people who feel that they have been cheated, treated in an un-just way. They turn to a place where they can have some support where they can feel needed, and where they can’t get their aggression released. When these people who may or may not have been treated un-just is then told that he can’t say what he wants, he is polarized even more. If instead it is the people who say this is not right, you shouldn’t say that, the violator feel doesn’t feel coerced with, in the same way.

Coming back to my point about how the class today summed up my argument. I went away from class today, being scared that is said something that I shouldn’t have, because someone might have been offended by it. I am going to think twice before I say it again. In fright of hurting someone, where as if Mark would have said, “You shouldn’t say that” I would be more inclined to repeat it just in spite.