| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> > I think Scott is right on this one. While censorship usually has the
> > implication of morality-judgements, it's also used in the sense of keeping
> > things secret. Think of a military censor, watching the media to keep out
> > any information that might give away important tactical information (or sway
> > public opinion). Same sorta thing.
>
> I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did
> not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although
> retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has
> occurred here) may still be contain the word "censorship," it certainly isn't
> censorship in the usual sense. To the military example, the military censor's
> job is to make sure that the media doesn't get any sensitive information in
> the first place. Since there is no automatic or manual review mechansim on
> lugnet for ensuring that posts do not contain sensitive information, I don't
> think the military example applies here.
>
> --Todd
Agreed. And thanks for digging up the cyberlaw cite, those were the very cases
I was referring to, although I was incorrect in referring to Compuserve as a
common carrier, their defense was the library defense. (Believe it or not, I
think there was a case very early in the history of the telephone in which a
telephone company was allegedly held to be party to a libel suit but it was
quickly established that telephone companies are carriers, not publishers, and
therefore not liable for what is transmitted through them, but conversely not
protected by freedom of speech protections that publishers enjoy.)
It's clear to me that Lugnet is more like the Compuserve model than it is the
Prodigy model, which featured active editing and enforcement actions against
individual postings. But is it enough like Compuserve to be free of "editorial
control"? I don't think so. Hence my concern. You have to be VERY close to
unrestricted flow to be the library model. It helps that Lugnet disclaims
copyright on material authored by participants, but it's not enough.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) sway (...) censor's (...) <SNIPPED> So if it is not "censorship", what is it? I missed the posts (e-mails welcome), so I have no real ideal what was in the post. So to me this denial of information, for no solid reason as far as I can see, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has occurred here) may (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
