Subject:
|
Defining censorship
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:58:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3862 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> 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*!!"
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 government removed certain TV shows from
broadcast because their content was controversial. BUT! They don't remove it
totally. Here's what they do:
In this theoretical government, they take the TV show, and make it available on
laserdisc through local town/city halls. BUT! In order to obtain a copy of the
laserdisc, you have to fill out an application. You can't be turned down for the
application, but you have to provide your name, ID, address, and you have to be
fingerprinted and photographed. Then, after you've done this, your application
is submitted to "the authorities". "The authorities" can't deny your access,
they just want to know EXACTLY who's applying. Then you have to wait for 72
hours after your application is submitted before having access to the laserdisc.
This allows time for the government to make a copy for you, plus, they have the
right to set up surveillance of you when you come to pick up the disc.
You might cry foul at this point (or maybe long before) because not everyone has
access to a laserdisc player. It's an intentionally obscure medium. So to be
"fair", each town/city has to provide public access to a laserdisc player.
Again, you can't be denied access, but you have to sign up for a viewing, which
may take a long time, depending on who else is signing up to use it, and again,
you have to submit another lengthy application so that the government can watch
exactly whatever it is that you're watching.
Oh, and to be more clear, you're not allowed to broadcast or copy the laserdisc
once you obtain it, and you're also not allowed to show it to anyone else,
unless they've similarly filled out an application. Oh, and the disc can't leave
the country, and the plastic that they use for the disc will degrade to the
point of being unwatchable after 1 month.
Censorship?
I'd say so. They make you jump through such ridiculous hoops that very few
people would actually want to run the gauntlet. But technically, they haven't
*denied* you access. They've just made sure you REALLY, REALLY mean it when you
want to watch certain content.
Basically, in my book once you're being forced by authority into taking grossly
unusual steps to obtain effectively arbitrary content, that starts to become
censorship. And yes, how you define "grossly unusual" is a shade of gray.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
