On Atheists & Censorship
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, Democracy on | 7 minutes | 7 Comments →
I was on an atheist website the other day when the following remark caught my eye:
Why is it that the only blogs which seem to moderate dissenting comments are Christian ones?
-Yunshui, on Superstition Free
That's one of the most inaccurate claims I've heard in the blogosphere, by far! Granted, there's no authoritative study on who censors speech more between atheists and believers, so of course people can only address this question from their own personal experience along with what they've heard from others, which makes our judgments subjective. Still, it's obviously beyond denial that Yunshui has seen a significant number of believers censor speech, else that comment wouldn't have been made.
Don't get me wrong: I agree that a significant number of believers practice censorship; I've seen it with my own eyes. This thread at DefCon is a perfect example, where the Desert Pastor deleted questions from PhillyChief, along with a supporting comment from SI, yet for some reason allowed Gideon's disparaging remark against PhillyChief to remain, even when DefCon's own "rules of engagement" state that "demeaning" or "insulting" comments will not be tolerated. Apparently, demeaning or insulting comments are tolerated, when made against atheists. So yes, I concur with those who point out that believers are prone censoring others, and I concur that it stinks.
However, what I think many atheists are either less aware or less critical of is the fact that at least in the blogosphere, censorship against believers is arguably just as common within the atheist community. Anyone even lightly affiliated with TWIM and the Aetheosphere knows I've been on the receiving end of censorship plenty of times: to date, I've been banned or censored from Greta Christina's blog, Daylight Atheism, Evangelical Realism, and Why I Hate Jesus. Even the Spanish Inquisitor – who himself criticized DefCon for censoring Philly – came close to banning me, that is of course until the rest of Team Scarlet A talked him into relenting.
I'm very interested in the psychology underlying the drive to censor others. I think it's fair to say that religious and conservative people of are more prone to censoring speech than others, but I don't think religion or conservatism is necessarily the cause of the phenomenon. I'm often suspicious of simplistic psychology that suggests ready-made absolutes. As with any other complex human phenomenon, I believe the drive to censor results from different influences in different people: some people censor because they're intolerant, arrogant, or bigoted; others censor because they're unwilling or unable to form a cogent response, as SI notes in his excellent post Insular Beliefs; and still others censor for more trivial reasons: perhaps they don't like the particular tone a person uses, or that a person swears.
Still, are any of those things sufficient justification to censor others?
By no means do I intend to imply that I've never been difficult at times. By its very nature, online debate is difficult: we're debating what are often life's most important questions, all without the advantages of audio-visual cues like body language and inflection. Some say I need to consider the criticisms leveled against me, but believe me, I do. Though I might talk forcefully or harshly at times, one cannot appeal to humility until they realize that criticisms from others are often valid – especially the ones we strongly resist. I understand the justifications offered by those who've censored me: they say that I'm a troll and a liar, I derail and hog threads, I'm not intellectually honest, I'm a heckler, a loser, a mealy-mouthed prick and all sorts of other nasty things that are apparently too much to deal with for certain people. Yet, for certain people is the key phrase here, and what my detractors conveniently omit is that all but one of the blogs I've been censored on or banned from also had consistent instances of other commenters – both atheist and believer – who complimented me or agreed with me, or thought that certain atheists were over-reacting to the things I was saying.
For instance,
You're doing a fine job…
-Prof. Larry Moran, University of Toronto, re Evangelical RealismI certainly didn't get any bad impression about cl, and I can't relate his comments with any of the things [Ebonmuse] said… I actually thought it was quite interesting to have [cl] around.
-Juan Felipe, on Daylight Atheism…I can't reconcile being a "freethinker" with banning speech. [cl's] comments are not offensive in the normal understanding of that term, and he poses absolutely no threat except perhaps to some imagined decorum. Why can't atheists lighten up, for no-Christ's sake?
-The Exterminator, on Spanish Inquisitorcl, I have to say, while I fundamentally disagree with you, you are an individual which I highly respect. I think your responses are always well thought out and your insights always well thought out and pertinently derived. [Y]ou have made me a stronger atheist in my regards to critical thinking and debating. I really can't wait to hear more from you.
-Parker, on Evangelical RealismPlease continue to allow cl to post his views and make it clear that he is still welcome… let me be clear, cl is not a lunatic.
-Curtis, on Daylight Atheism
These are just five of over two dozen positive comments I could produce to challenge my detractors' claims, but that's not the point. Today, I'd like to argue that even if ALL the negative things my detractors say about me were absolutely 100% correct – even then – censorship is still un-American, anti-intellectual, and a sign of weakness.
About censorship in general, Robert Madwell, who hosts Superstition Free, the blog where I found the opening comment, said the following:
I can't even think of a comment that would be so bad that I'd have to delete it. Even if I had a death threat, I would respond to it in the comment thread. Deleting comments is just rude.
Right? I mean, in discussions about (a)theism, what speech could possibly be so bad that we have to shield others from hearing it? If somebody makes inane or insulting comments, it just makes the person making them look bad, so why not leave them? I honestly cannot empathize with those who would silence others because of perceived non-conformity to "some imagined decorum," and although censorship is not necessarily synonymous with tyranny, the two are often seen hand-in-hand.
Later in the thread, Yunshui said the following to Kirby, the youth pastor with whom everybody was speaking:
..refusal to enter into debate merely indicates that you are unable or unwilling to defend your faith,
Again, I tend to agree. What does it say about our arguments if we simply delete tough or dissenting questions, for example as GCT did here? Is it really that bad to point out that a writer has overlooked statements which challenge their claims?
I don't think anyone who practices censorship can call themselves a freethinker, or claim to value freedom of speech – or rational discourse. Now, I'm not saying you're not a true freethinker if you refuse to let your daughter wear an obscene T-shirt to middle school. Nor am I saying we should tolerate the prankster with the megaphone at the city hall meeting. I'm talking in the context of open argumentation in a free marketplace of ideas – that is, when people from a diversity of backgrounds and ideologies are freely discussing issues of importance to their society. In that context, it is my opinion that we absolutely must allow all points of view – especially in a country like America where all points of view are supposedly welcomed.
So, my challenge to atheists is to equally criticize atheists who practice censorship and call special pleading wherever you see it; and my challenge to believers is to simply have more patience, and not act so defensively towards those who question.
Ritchie
says...Hello.
I think censorship in the main is both cowardly and dishonest, but I can see there are times it is called for. How, for example, should we as a tolerant society deal with intolerance? Many small-minded and objectionable views such as racism, homophobia and xenophobia spread simply because impressionable minds are exposed them, and they play on primal instincts rather than rational thought. So there is a good argument to be made in giving these views as little exposure as possible.
Just to be clear, I am not at all accusing cl of holding such objectionable views. I was referring to censorship in principle only.
cl
says...Hi Ritchie..
I’m working on your questions as we speak, I just wanted to address this comment and to let you know I hadn’t censored your questions out of existence, which would really be quite ironic considering the subject matter of this post.. :)
I agree with you that (in general) censorship is cowardly and dishonest, but as with most things in life, universal absolutes don’t work too well here, either. As you point out, an anything-goes, 100% laissez faire policy on speech and expression is precisely what allows racism, homophobia and other expressions of intolerance to persist. I do believe there are valid reasons for giving these views as little exposure as possible, so we agree there, and I understand you weren’t implying I held such objectionable views. In a world where people are prone to jump to all sorts of wild conclusions, I can only appreciate your respect for clarity.
This post was aimed at a specific form of censorship: the removal or “moderation” of valid dissent. I believe that so long as dissent does not qualify as any of the objectionable behaviors we’ve both decried, censorship and/or moderation is – as you said – “cowardly and dishonest.”
Also, a few questions: we agree there is a good argument to be made in giving these views as little exposure as possible; do you think that means we should disallow racist speech? For me, that’s a tough one. First, we have to have somebody define what is and is not racist speech. Second, I think that allowing idiocy to see the light of day is often a great way to undermine it. What do you think? Should intolerant speech be curtailed? If so, when? By who?
Also, when do you think a blogger is justified in banning dissent, closing comment threads, etc.? I say never, except to remove ads and spam.
cl
says...Hi Ritchie..
I’m working on your questions as we speak, I just wanted to address this comment and to let you know I hadn’t censored your questions out of existence, which would really be quite ironic considering the subject matter of this post.. :)
I agree with you that (in general) censorship is cowardly and dishonest, but as with most things in life, universal absolutes don’t work too well here, either. As you point out, an anything-goes, 100% laissez faire policy on speech and expression is precisely what allows racism, homophobia and other expressions of intolerance to persist. I do believe there are valid reasons for giving these views as little exposure as possible, so we agree there, and I understand you weren’t implying I held such objectionable views. In a world where people are prone to jump to all sorts of wild conclusions, I can only appreciate your respect for clarity.
This post was aimed at a specific form of censorship: the removal or “moderation” of valid dissent. I believe that so long as dissent does not qualify as any of the objectionable behaviors we’ve both decried, censorship and/or moderation is – as you said – “cowardly and dishonest.”
Also, a few questions: we agree there is a good argument to be made in giving these views as little exposure as possible; do you think that means we should disallow racist speech? For me, that’s a tough one. First, we have to have somebody define what is and is not racist speech. Second, I think that allowing idiocy to see the light of day is often a great way to undermine it. What do you think? Should intolerant speech be curtailed? If so, when? By who?
Also, when do you think a blogger is justified in banning dissent, closing comment threads, etc.? I say never, except to remove ads and spam.
Ritchie
says...This is actually a topic close to my heart, since I work for an online company moderating comments on articles and discussion forums.
One of the trickest ‘reasons’ to remove/reject a post is for being ‘offensive’. Sometimes it is obvious. But other times not. Some people (for example when they are discussing sport) say the most outrageous things to each other, and it’s all taken on the chin as good-humoured banter. I suppose the yard stick for something being offensive is whether someone else feels offended by it.
Which brings us onto religion. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion points out the almighty degree to which religious beliefs are protected from criticism by social etiquette. It is considered far ruder and more taboo to criticize a person’s views/beliefs on religion than it is to criticize their views/beliefs on history, art, maths, or practically any other subject. When it comes to offending others, religion is a far more sensitive subject than most. Some may speculate that this stems from religion’s irrational refusal to be analysed or criticized (calling such offenders ‘blasphemers’).
I like your point that letting ‘idiocy see the light of day is a great way to undermine it’. Amen to that! But notice this only really works if the particular idiotic views are broadcast infrequently, and the population as a whole already see them for what they are. I think they are effective deterrants against people BECOMING racist (for example), but not so great for deterring people who already agree with them.
The Creationists, for example, are simply calling for exposure. They want schools to ‘teach the controversy’. This I would object to, and I’m sure they would see it as unfair censorship.
Finally you ask when is a blogger justified in banning dissent, closing comment threads, etc. I admit in my line of work, I sometimes ban people simply because I know them, and I know they are nothing but trouble. I know that if I let them continue, I will have a day full of complaints either from or about them, so I just nip it in the bud. Am I stiffling free speech? Probably, yes. But I believe it is a right which should be revoked from some people if they demonstrably repeatedly abuse it (again, I’m not thinking of you here…).
Karla
says...Ritchie “Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion points out the almighty degree to which religious beliefs are protected from criticism by social etiquette. It is considered far ruder and more taboo to criticize a person’s views/beliefs on religion than it is to criticize their views/beliefs on history, art, maths, or practically any other subject.”
I just wanted to comment on this, while this is true that it is a very sensitive issue to many because it is so close to their heart and life, I would also say, speaking only for Christianity, (not to say other groups don’t do this) that apologist work to provide forums for people to ask the tough questions without being met free from fear of offending. I try to provide such a forum on my site, and I cl and others do this too as well as popular ministries such as Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. Many Christians have made themselves available to Dawkins himself to debate the issue either in person or through answering his books by their books. Allowing and welcoming the critique. Anyway, while it is still true that often people get easily offended, it doesn’t have to be that way, and more and more Christians are understanding that though you will still meet the ones who don’t. I am sorry for that, and I put forth every effort to try and educate Christians to not be so easily offended by skeptics. There is no reason for it.
cl
says...Ritchie,
Although each blog and blogging community is different, at least as far as general threads on (a)theist blogs are concerned, I think the worst thing about offensive speech is that it obscures the pursuit of clarity.
In reality, sure, but that’s probably the worst yardstick to use in practical applications.
Yeah, there’s definitely some ground for both context and caution here.
Really? I don’t. I think all origin-of-life theories should be discussed in an introductory high school philosophy / world religion course. I think it would help dissolve the controversy and ignorance.
See, now that’s funny. There are a handful of atheist bloggers who say the same thing about me (like Ebonmuse), yet on that other post you, myself and a half-dozen others just had one of the better and more productive threads I’ve seen in months. I think such suggests duplicity more than sound judgment, but that’s just my opinion.
I may or may not disagree, but before I could do either I’d have to know what you mean by abuse. Is excessive commenting abuse? Responding to everyone who engages? Excessive word count? It should be expected that if a believer goes on an atheist site and pokes a hole in an argument or two that it’s going to ruffle some feathers, as it does when atheists do the same on believers’ sites. What’s to stop a bruised ego from labeling the person a troll, when really they’re just a persistent dissenter? Trolls are people who don’t care about sound argument and only enjoy the fights. I don’t.
Karla,
Well, yeah, but you gotta admit, many believers run their sites with an iron fist (for example DefCon). Also, while I’d object to being called an apologist, I would agree with you and add that any site committed to intellectual exploration should provide an atmosphere for people to ask the tough questions free of fear of offending.
Karla
says...CL, I do admit that Dawkins/Ritchie’s point is true to some extent and it’s a shame seekers or skeptics are met with that offense. However, it is also true that the Bible is the most scrutinized and analyzed text of all “religious” literature and Christians, ever since the Reformation and
the advent of the printing press, have made it readily available in the vernacular so that people could read it for themselves and not have to take a religious leader’s word for it.