 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Unoriginal parents? Tim (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Wait a minute--I just realized that in this little discussion we have a Leonard, two Daves, and three Tims, one of whom qualifies as both a Tim and a David. What's going on here?!? Dave! (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Hey, we don't want any mention of THAT place here! ;-) Tim (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) What's the standard, then? Does censorship cover anything that doesn't include everything? That would define "censorship" so thinly that it would have no meaning at all. But if we insetad define "censorship" to be an action of government, then (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) So, you're arguing that censorship can only be effected by a government, or illegally? By illegally, I'm suggesting that a private citizen/organization violates an agreement such as public free speech or their own TOS. Essentially, I think (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Just because something is a legal restriction of free speech doesn't make it not censorship. Free speech is not a complimentary set of censorship and the two can in fact overlap, likewise the absence of one does not guarantee the presence of (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bible as a literal source?
|
|
(...) Then perhaps we are more closely in agreement than I had realized. (...) Well now you are assuming that I literally believe the Genesis account of creation, which would be a stretch. Given that Western cultures still believed that the Earth (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Nope. The child and parents can still read the book at the local library or at the bookstore or even online. The private school is choosing not to carry a particular book on private property, which isn't censorship. Suppose I write a book that (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) I definitely disagree. If a private school wants to exclude any and all books from its premisis talking about Darwin's evolutionary theory, that's censorship! Everyone involved might be totally fine with it, and they might have made you aware (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) In case anyone is interested, I assume you mean this thread: (URL) Of course, BL posts are purged every 6 months so don't bother clicking on any of those links. (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Defining censorship
|
|
(...) Agree! I set up the example to intentionally sound like the type of government that we would be more anxious to call "censoring". Arguably, I could've done without the lengthy applications and fingerprinting and such, and I would *still* call (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Hey, that's pretty good. In essence, omission is not censorship; restriction is. That works at least in the public arena, but it still doesn't apply IMO to a private forum. Still, it's a good rule of thumb. Dave! (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) I think that you misread me. I was referring to such an outlet that does allege that responsibility. I'm not referring to news outlets in general, which may or may not allege responsibility. Those seem to be two very different cases. (...) (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) On the contrary, people have said it is bad. Describing something as "Orwellian" is making a judgment call about it- "Orwellian" is not good. And Todd's coining of the term was because he felt this particular solution had never been developed (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) From what (and how) I've read no-one has claimed that murfling is eroding anyone's rights. They have claimed that the term is a euphemistic way of saying censored and that the use of euphemism is bad (at least from my reading). From your (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Censorship implies a bit more active restriction, I think. Censorship of the news would be when a party involved in delivering the news attempts to delivery a particular piece of news but is denied by their editor, manager, network, the FCC, (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Actually it doesn't have any such responsibility. It may be prudent to broadcast unaltered information (although it usually isn't, political slant is a good way to differentiate yourself from your competitors) but I'm willing to bet that if (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Todd coined it. Altho it has since become a "bad" word, he intended it to sound a little silly. The rest of the admins loved it, expecting that the community would accept it as a compromise between no cursing and free speech. It still amazes (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Defining censorship
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: -snip- (...) I like your example. It provides a descent example of how restricting access, but not denying access, can be censorship. (...) What bothers me about your example is the accumulation of (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Nope. It comes back to the TOS. I can dig up the link if you'd like, but a year or so ago there was a big discussion regarding someone's ouster from Bricklink for violating the TOS of that site. Great was the outcry on his behalf, though I (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
