Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:22:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3980 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allister McLaren wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > > The word murfle was created to describe a form of censorship in fluffy
> > > terms ie. the misleading use of terminology to cloak the true meaning.
> > > There's nothing new about having an uncensored and a censored version of
> > > things so it's not a new word to describe a new action.
> > >
> > > > Is it censorship when a web site makes you click an extra link in order to
> > > > see material that may be considered offensive to some?
> > > No it's not.
> >
> > So how is that different from having to click an extra link to see the
> > "un-murfled" version of a message? Do you recognize only shades of grey,
> > but not shades of pink?
>
> All censorship is equal, but some censorship is more equal than others.
I'll jump in here and (not having read the whole thread) I'm sure I'll state
something that's blatantly obvious and has (probably) been stated--
Censorship is some form of management (parent/school board/society) *denying*
access to some publication--"we have decided that you should not have *access*
to this *ever*!!" Either in the form of 'book burning/banning/whathaveyou' or
school boards removing Tom Sawyer from the libraries--whatever it is, the
publication in question has been entirely removed from access to whomever wanted
access to it.
Of course, on a parenthetical point--of course little Tommy can get access to
Tom Sawyer even if the school board removes all copies of it from the school
system--he just nips off to a non-schoolboard related venue that would carry
said book. It's the height of arrogant stupidity of 'management' to censor any
type of publicaiton for that'll make that publication more sought after--"Why
would they ban this--now I want it!!!"
Anyway, that's completely different from 'murfling'. Murfling, in this context,
is the video store putting Peter North and 'Debbie does Dallas' movies in a
separate room that states 'Adults Only' and 'You must be over 18 years old to
enter' above the door. Putting porn videos in a separate room with various
warnings for entering, or putting the 'Skanks 'R Us' mags on the top shelf (out
of reach of minors) is *NOT* censorship--it's taking legitimate steps to make
sure that people who don't want to access 'those' type of publications are not
exposed to 'those' types of publications, but allowing those that *want* porn
can *freely* access porn.
See, if you want to walk through the door, you have free access to porn. If you
want to grab 'Smuts' from the top shelf, no one is stopping you--it's there for
you to peruse to your heart's desire.
And in that, my naive, obtuse friend, is all the difference in the world.
Censor means to 'take away'--to try and deny access. If it ain't there, how can
you possibly read it?
Murfling, however--It's still there *in its entirety*--you just have to walk
beyond the doors with the warnings, or you have to reach up to the top shelf.
So if you want to read the post--click on the little button and it's all
there--in its intended glory and full technicolour--spread out for you to see.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Defining censorship
|
| (...) As I mentioned elsewhere, I personally would consider things other than strict denials as censorship, although I agree that murfling isn't strong enough to be what I would consider to be censorship. For example, let's pretend that the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
