>penis poll

No, we don't censor them. Back in my day (1000 BC) we would listen, and if it was stupid, we killed them.

For me, it is a matter of where someone is speaking. In public? No, I am not in favor of using force to silence anyone. On the speaker's property? No, I don't believe that any outside entity should be able to silence someone who is in/on their own property. On the property of someone who is not the speaker? I believe that the property owner has a say as to who can be on their property, what they are willing to allow guests to do or prohibit, and if a guest is saying something that the property owner does not want to hear, does not want discussed, than the property owner is within their rights to ask the guest to stop speaking or to leave. The tricky part is that many people are not 100% clear when they are on or using the property of someone else. For example, I doubt that many people would be against the idea that in a public place such as a town square, or on the sidewalk in front of a courthouse, that anyone should be free and able to speak their mind, carry a sign, or otherwise express themselves, provided they are not harming anyone else, preventing others from free movement, or causing harm or damage to others. Similarly, if someone wanted to put up signs in their front yard? That is reasonable. However, I don't believe that someone has a right to come up to your door (or to mine) and be permitted to stay on that property (if they have been asked to leave by the owner or an agent) either speaking or posting signs. Here's one that is tricky and worth exploring all sides of. What about government property? How about a military base? Inside of a courthouse or legislative chamber? How about on an Interstate Highway? In my opinion, for a person or group of people to use those for personal expression and/or protest would be "across the line" as they would be infringing on the rights of others to use those locations for their intended purpose. Blocking a highway, closing down a court session, preventing a legislative body from operating? That is a protest and speech that harms and intrudes on the rights of others. It is (to me) "a step too far" in an attempt to "have our voices heard" when there are other public places that are available and more appropriate. In those cases, the "speech" is less important than the disruption in order to force others to "hear our speech". Freedom to speak does not equal a freedom to force others to listen.

I agree with censorship when what is being said or shown is meant to incite crime or attacks

Am I the only immature -blam!-er that laughs when the polls end up being a penis?? Especially now since it's a poll about censorship and the response is a dick

In what sense?

Yes censor all food things.

No, yet many social media outlets are doing it. Facebook & Twitter are big on permanently banning people that speak out about Islam & anything that isn't considered 'politically correct.' People should be able to speak their mind

Not good. But it is important to challenge dogma.

Yes.

Only if they're Rebel scum.

Depends on the wrinkles, I would prefer people walk around holding a black rectangle on their gross bits

Yes, in some cases.

Yes. Not everyone is smart enough to have an opinion. Only certain people with a certain IQ should be allowed to share their opinions in public. We should also censor books, games, shows, music, and movies while we're at it since they have the capability of supporting a bad message

Alright, who the hell voted yes?

8 people have answered "Yes." Out of the woodwork, you authoritarians. Explain your answer to me.

No, because who gets to decide what deserves censorship? If your concern is children, then it should be left to the parents, if it concerns yourself, change the channel, look away or go elsewhere. Censorship is the tool of an authoritarian. At a federal level, it's the tool of a fascist and tyrant. I have/had a dad, I don't need someone else attempting to be him.

You mean [i]censorshit[/i]?