[Pyramus]

You are making a false equivalence here: Restriction of free speech != censorship.

Every single Western democracy on this planet restricts free speech in exactly the way parent described - as a trade-off between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the souvereign [1]. Even the US has a long list of restrictions to free speech.

The question is not whether to restrict free speech, the question is where to draw the line.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

[giantrobot]

> Restriction of free speech != censorship.

You're making a false assertion that attaching consequences to some speech is censorship. No one can prevent you from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. There are however post hoc consequences for doing so falsely, as doing so is very dangerous to others.

Even then you have the opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law. You may have been thought there was a fire in the theater but simply been mistaken. That's why laws include clauses of intent.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.

[bondarchuk]

>"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[Pyramus]

That is exactly my point - where do we, as a society, draw the line.

suppression of speech != restriction of free speech

It is a very very delicate and complicated balance - what I am objecting to is to ignore that this balance exists.

If you disagree with the word "restriction", let me rephrase as "free speech has limits" or "free speech is not the end goal".

"In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is restricted by time, place and manner"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

[bondarchuk]

I think we are in complete agreement, but for some reason you want to avoid using the word "censorship" in the case of a restriction of speech that you agree with (a restriction you agree with). Sure, free speech has limits. Beyond those limits, censorship is applied. At this point it's just an argument over the definition of words, not very interesting.

[Pyramus]

Yes and no. Words do matter. Censorship usually (also) refers to restrictions of free speech typical for non-democratic societies [1], which doesn't lead to productive discussions (in my experience). It is not uncommon to see the false conclusion "censorship is used in authoritarian countries therefore free speech must not be restricted".

> a restriction of speech that you agree with

It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree. It matters whether we, as a society, can find a balance between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the sovereign/state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[bondarchuk]

>It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree. It matters whether we, as a society, can find a balance between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the sovereign/state.

Yes. And this is called... censorship. Even when we, the good guys, do it. You can't just change the definition of words based on whether a western democracy or an authoritarian hellhole does it, when they're doing exactly the same thing.

Edit:

> Censorship usually (also) refers to restrictions of free speech typical for non-democratic societies [1], which doesn't lead to productive discussions (in my experience). It is not uncommon to see the false conclusion "censorship is used in authoritarian countries therefore free speech must not be restricted".

If people make a faulty argument, point out the fault in the argument. No need to change the definition of words so the ground shifts under their feet. FWIW, I think "censorship is a prime feature of authoritarian governments" is a perfectly valid argument against, ahem, restricting free speech.

[Pyramus]

Not sure where I changed the definition of censorship - I was saying that using the word censorship can easily lead to false equivalences, such as

> they're doing exactly the same thing.

No, they aren't, baseline and context matters. You are falsely equating the removal of say, anti-vax conspiracy content in the US, with the removal of say, political/homosexual/religious/ethnic content in an authoritarian regime. If you don't believe me, ask somebody who was forced to flee their country due to any of the above reasons.

> point out the fault in the argument.

Let's assume 'censorship' == any restriction to free speech. We already agreed that every Western democracy has such restrictions or 'censorship'. How can "authoritarian regimes use 'censorship'" now be an argument against 'censorship'?

To paraphrase (not a perfect analogy), murderers use knives, and chefs use knives, but "murderers use knives" is not valid argument against knives?

I understand if you disagree with already existing restrictions of free speech in Western democracies, is that what you mean?

[epgui]

I would actually agree with this— it’s how I personally use the word, but in as abstract as sense as possible.

For eg.: copyright is a form of censorship.