Originally posted to Open Salon:

So here's a question that's been on my mind for some time: how and when should we censor ourselves? I am most certainly a netizen, and I enjoy posting a lot of ideas and discussion on the Internet. Some of what I say encounters harsh resistance—some of it for good reasons (for example, my post here on OS and DailyKos about how we should be ashamed for putting the economy before the war). But sometimes I get resistance for not so good reasons. Some of my ideas are ridiculed as naive and pointless; for example, I suggested that we should pass an international law "in every country which states that any company with shares held in a specific country must abide by consumer protection laws in that country." I do not regret saying that, and I plan to say more things like it.

So, to begin with, when should we censor ourselves?

I'm not necessarily talking about censorship of news media, but more along the lines of face-to-face conversation—the fabric of free speech in it's most basic form. There's no denying it: we censor ourselves all the time. We don't say "hello" to someone who we perceive we're on bad terms with. We don't tell jokes that may hurt someone. We don't say things that encourage dangerous behavior, like yelling "fire" in a theater. But what are the rules of self-censorship?

I think we can agree that we should self-censor thoughts that would be rude or inconsiderate. I think we should censor any thoughts which are intended to harm someone, or which are racist or sexist, for example. Many disability activist organizations try to get us to censor the nomenclature we use to define people with disabilities. The same thing happens with ethnicities. I feel this is to a great extent a positive force. I also think we can agree that we should self-censor out-and-out lies. Lying is almost never appropriate and is often destructive. Lies and hostile and prejudiced speech should be kept out of the public sphere.

The foundation of these rules, I think, are good ones. The fabric of our society in the most basic sense depends on the words we use. The more we use speech in destructive ways, the more we destroy our relationships, and the more we destroy the fabric of our society. People who break these rules understandably suffer social sanctions. But are there other rules for censorship which which we do not enforce and should?

What about non-factive speech, or ignorant speech? A professor of mine expressed concern that creationism, denials of human-caused global warming, and indeed anything which "disputes the basic findings of science" should be self-censored. It does not belong in the public arena at all. According to this criterion, any kind of opinion that is ignorant, not grounded in facts, or willfully distorts the facts, would be seen as harmful in the public arena and should be left out. Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, et. al. would experience heavy social sanctions for their speech, and, crucially, not just when they spout lies and hypocrisy. Just about everything they currently say would be taboo. The people would force them off the air.

Does non-factive speech destroy the fabric of our democracy enough to place sanctions on it? In speech, as in anything, mistakes are mistakes. Mistakes should be avoided. But for people to grow they must sometimes make mistakes. We're tolerant of a certain extent of rudeness in people who we consider to have a "good heart"—who are at least making an effort to be a decent human being. So should we tolerate non-factive speech at all? How much should we tolerate it? (I happen to think we should not tolerate non-factive speech—more so in our public figures than in the general public. I'm curious to know what others think.)

How would censorship of ignorant, non-factive speech apply to speech about God? Just how ignorant are we of God to begin with? Jesus says that no one knows the Lord but Him. Does that mean any speech about God should be kept out of the public arena, because it is ignorant? What if we know Christ, and Christ knows God, and so can give us insight about Him to us? But here I think there is a subtle distinction—there is a difference between plain old ignorance and ignorance of faith. To me, faith is the quality of an altruistic belief that is certain, but of which the small details are to some extent obscure. Buddhists talk about maintaining the thought of enlightenment, or the end goal to end all sorrows, but at the same time have teachings for maintaining faith during difficult times. If something bad happens to you, they say, don't lose faith, because it is either happening to you for some good reason, or it is your negative karma coming to fruition, and you should be glad that it is happening to you while you're still a human being. My point is, we Buddhists don't necessarily know what will happen in the future, but we do know that it will eventually lead to enlightenment. We are ignorant of many of the things that will happen to us, but we know the ultimate end result as per our faith. This is ignorance of faith, and I would argue it should not be kept out of the public arena.

But what about another kind of ignorance?— and here I am getting into something which I come across a lot online. What about ignorance of naiveness? A lot of my posts on this site and elsewhere on the internet have to do with possible economic-political systems which probably would never be implemented. A lot of people call me naive for posting these things. I get the feeling that people expect me to "grow out" of them. I sense a good deal of hostility against any idea which would be impossibly difficult to implement. But I think I can make a strong case for sharing them. First of all, implementing these ideas is not the goal. They are naive, but in a loose sense possible (I hope). And in that they are loosely possible, they are not necessarily founded on willful ignorance. And furthermore, they are useful. While they will not come to fruition (I'm almost certain of that), they at least creatively define the parts of our current system which work well and the parts which do not work well. By suspending disbelief and looking at a fantasy world system, we get a more informed perspective on our own world system, and that can inspire positive change, too.

I am going to continue posting things from religious and naive perspectives, but I do not do so on the vague and ill-formed idea that all speech is good speech, and that is why we have free speech in the first place. We have free speech to counteract specific abuses which historically have led to ridiculously destructive acts of government, and that concept has no bearing on self-censorship. Self-censorship, to some extent is good. But only of the right things.

If I invision a book so large that to publish it will require all the trees on Earth, should I self-censor?

edit: delete

wonder without
censorship,
assume not.

such cannot be disputed, clearly.

i have been trying to point out that in too many cases neither "the particular environment" nor "the conditions surrounding the idea" in any way "support the creative effort".

and i do so without accusing the individual noticing it, i.e. making the whistle blower a target and a scapegoat, while insisting on explanation by indirect fingerpointing. and yes, now this is a direct playing of the ball back into your court.

q.e.d. on fingerpointing on your part, imho.

Just allowing for the eye to see what is being pointed at. (not necessarily the physical eye)
I'm not on any particular schedule.

would require "equal" adjustment to any particularity ~~~ but you are scheduling, i.e. seeing yourself in a leading position, and possibly for a reason, all becoming pure guesswork for anyone still in conversation here.

hi Quinn!

you got a standing invitation to such a world, remember?