In Certain Cases, Censorship is Necessary

Thank you for accepting the argument and establishing a thought out debate. I believe you are accusing me of more than you think I was advocating for. My primary argument would apply only to nations that have established their own forms of social contracts. In nations, social contracts differ, and people have no quarrel with their own forms of governments. In the Untied States people believe that rights are god-given and no person or group of people (Governments) can take them away. In nations like Russia, Finland, Estonia, and Japan, they have very strict laws in terms of rights and in some cases freedom of speech in return for protection. Those 4 nations are known for being internally stable by terms of their governments. They are all real life examples that small increments of censorship brings about stability. Not all governments that have censorship are tyrannical. I advocated for censorship on any form of event that would have the potential to destabilize and instigate violence into a nation. A government with the form of social contract that I am attempting to argue, would expect the worst and that it's people may be easily persuaded that anarchy and violence can be useful in advancing self interests and the greater good of society. (The examples I am about to show do not include subjects against their federal law or constitution.) The 4 nations that I had previously named are prime examples of functioning societies in which they have small elements of censorship from freedom of speech in order to preserve stability or internet censorship to stop the spread of violence. Russia has limited freedom of speech for anything that advocates violence or anti-government protesting [1]. The people of Russia have not rioted against these regulations as their social contract is accepted for limited rights for security. Russia still has un-censored internet (As long as it doesn't break federal laws, like the deep web). In Japan, the internet is slightly censored on violence advocacy while protesting and petition remains virtually untouched [2]. In Finland, internet censorship and protesting is highly frowned upon and therefore censored [3]. Finland, Japan and Russia suffer little to no public relations damage because of their censorship because their social contract are leftward leaning towards security versus rights. As I said, those nations are prime examples of functioning censorship. Again, before you accuse me, I do not advocate tyranny. I argue for limited and small amounts of censorship in order to maintain national stability and peace. Let's take an example where freedom is highly treasured. France has one of the most amount of riots and protesting per capita in the developed world due to their relaxed censorship laws [4] . These riots cost an average of millions by 24 hour protesting and violence measurements. The UK also has relaxed censorship laws. The UK's Brexit debate has allowed millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to be lost from mass violence and protesting on both sides due to a lack of censorship in order to maintain stability and economic unity. Personally, (This isn't a part of the argument), it could have been avoided if Cameron said 'No' to a referendum to keep the hard-liners at bay and prevented it. I admit that I'm only deducing the different outcomes if France and the UK handled their censorship laws differently, but again. Russia, Estonia, Finland, Japan- very powerful countries - are real, stable examples. No part of my previous argument had talked about deceit. My argument for blurring the totality of numbers in high scale strikes against a nation from a foreign force is debatable as deceit or not. Let me give a scale to show what can be censored by numbers and what shouldn't. Orlando's attacks should not be censored, as it may be horrible, it isn't nationally devastating. 9/11 is. Following 9/11, there were a lot of protests and a lot of violence for the US to get militarily involved and strike back at whoever did those attacks. If the US had slowed the numbers down, it would have prevented the cracks in stability of the US and in the plummet of the US economy following. That doesn't mean saying "The planes crashed because of a little GPS error". No, it means to censor enough of the information that it wouldn't lead to the people who can't get enough information to fully analyze the consequences, into allowing an educated government to doing it for you. I advocate for censorship relative to Finland, Russia and Japan. Not China, North Korea, and Iran. Sources- [1] http://www.japantimes.co.jp... [2] http://www.cnet.com... [3] https://rbth.com... [4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...