| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
<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, feels like censorship. I
really think LUGNET needs a solid framework for dealing with this sort of issue
- as I expect it will happen again, just as it has happened before. If one can
be sure that there are risks involved, then act. Otherwise, just keep up the
good work. Hiding under the bed every time we get a rumble from TLG makes us
look like some sort of primitive civilisation worshipping some great lumbering
angry deity.
Scott A
BTW : Am I the only one here that thinks LUGNET was better before Brad showed
up and started making his pronouncements?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Let's be clear here, are you asking for someone to mail you a description of the contents (which you've already seen if you've read the thread, but briefly, it's proprietary marketing and pricing information that is the property of TLC), or (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
