 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves? —Allister McLaren
|
| | | (...) All censorship is equal, but some censorship is more equal than others. (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves? —Chris Phillips
|
| | | | | (...) Cute! (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves? —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Defining censorship —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Defining censorship —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | 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 (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Defining censorship —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
