Another complication: is malice decided based on the degree of the victim's reaction or is there a universal way to say, "Yes, that is malicious?" More and more people are letting their offenders know when they take offense lately, in my opinion. Does it matter how many people respond that they are offended, or is one deeply-offended person enough testimony? Or maybe because it hasn't been considered malicious in the past, it will continue to not be malicious going forward?
Interesting question. The definition of malice isn't dependent on if someone is offended. Malice is the deliberate intentional attempt to harm someone. People are often offended by people who had no intention of offending anyone and frankly I don't view being offended as automatically and every time being the infliction of intentional harm. Being offended has become this country's national pastime but that does not mean they are the victims of malicious intent. I think the universal way to say, "Yes, that is malicious," is to focus on what the words mean, and and whether or not there was intent to do harm.
I am a librarian with over 30 years of experience working with controversial topics. I both hate and love conversations about censorship. Basically, its never a good idea. I'm not talking about pornography or malicious intent, but about the suppression of ideas.
Anyone can have their world rocked by things they read or view. As you say, an author writes and everyone might interpret it differently. But some authors and publishers do have agendas. It is getting harder and harder to buy books for my school library because explicit sex has made its way into YA fiction. Of interest, is that strong language and violence do not seem to raise the hackles of watch-dog groups. Only sex. My concern is that sex is the gateway topic to more censorship.
I don't want someone telling me to remove the Communist Manifesto from my library any more than I want the Bible to be challenged. People need to read with discernment. We need to verify our sources and validate information in more than 2 places. Part of intellectual growth is the challenge of long held beliefs and exposure to new ideas and an awareness that our way isn't the only way. We need to read and we need to think. For ourselves.
It's that thinking part that seems to be a problem... thank you so much for commenting!! There is nothing quite like that "someone read my post!" feeling.🥰
Before social media, the public ignored offensive speech. If someone spoke too maliciously about anyone, people (maybe the police) would confront the speaker. They couldn’t hide behind the internet.
I wish all social media put “down” vote options on posts. A certain number, or percentage of, down votes, and the post is deleted.
I agree with the concept that people posting online hide behind the internet, in that it is more difficult to confront a wrongdoer. Having said that, I firmly believe anyone on a social media site has the ability to scroll past posts they disagree with and go on living their life. Deleting a post because of downvotes is censoring, so maybe just change the color of the post to give more sensitive readers a head's up. Otherwise, trolls would rule social media.
Censoring by government is wrong. Social media sites that promote communications shouldn’t censor either. But censoring by the community is good. Why? The community has the wisdom of crowds. An elite group of “officials” does not possess the wisdom of thousands. They’ll know when they hear garbage. The community will uphold their shared values and morals.
The community on the Christian site will delete the pornography. Also, the community on the porn site will delete the Christians.
By having a set standard (a certain percentage of down votes) allows other voices to be heard, but not necessarily tolerated.
Another complication: is malice decided based on the degree of the victim's reaction or is there a universal way to say, "Yes, that is malicious?" More and more people are letting their offenders know when they take offense lately, in my opinion. Does it matter how many people respond that they are offended, or is one deeply-offended person enough testimony? Or maybe because it hasn't been considered malicious in the past, it will continue to not be malicious going forward?
Interesting question. The definition of malice isn't dependent on if someone is offended. Malice is the deliberate intentional attempt to harm someone. People are often offended by people who had no intention of offending anyone and frankly I don't view being offended as automatically and every time being the infliction of intentional harm. Being offended has become this country's national pastime but that does not mean they are the victims of malicious intent. I think the universal way to say, "Yes, that is malicious," is to focus on what the words mean, and and whether or not there was intent to do harm.
I am a librarian with over 30 years of experience working with controversial topics. I both hate and love conversations about censorship. Basically, its never a good idea. I'm not talking about pornography or malicious intent, but about the suppression of ideas.
Anyone can have their world rocked by things they read or view. As you say, an author writes and everyone might interpret it differently. But some authors and publishers do have agendas. It is getting harder and harder to buy books for my school library because explicit sex has made its way into YA fiction. Of interest, is that strong language and violence do not seem to raise the hackles of watch-dog groups. Only sex. My concern is that sex is the gateway topic to more censorship.
I don't want someone telling me to remove the Communist Manifesto from my library any more than I want the Bible to be challenged. People need to read with discernment. We need to verify our sources and validate information in more than 2 places. Part of intellectual growth is the challenge of long held beliefs and exposure to new ideas and an awareness that our way isn't the only way. We need to read and we need to think. For ourselves.
It's that thinking part that seems to be a problem... thank you so much for commenting!! There is nothing quite like that "someone read my post!" feeling.🥰
Seems, not sends
Before social media, the public ignored offensive speech. If someone spoke too maliciously about anyone, people (maybe the police) would confront the speaker. They couldn’t hide behind the internet.
I wish all social media put “down” vote options on posts. A certain number, or percentage of, down votes, and the post is deleted.
I agree with the concept that people posting online hide behind the internet, in that it is more difficult to confront a wrongdoer. Having said that, I firmly believe anyone on a social media site has the ability to scroll past posts they disagree with and go on living their life. Deleting a post because of downvotes is censoring, so maybe just change the color of the post to give more sensitive readers a head's up. Otherwise, trolls would rule social media.
Censoring by government is wrong. Social media sites that promote communications shouldn’t censor either. But censoring by the community is good. Why? The community has the wisdom of crowds. An elite group of “officials” does not possess the wisdom of thousands. They’ll know when they hear garbage. The community will uphold their shared values and morals.
The community on the Christian site will delete the pornography. Also, the community on the porn site will delete the Christians.
By having a set standard (a certain percentage of down votes) allows other voices to be heard, but not necessarily tolerated.