Subject:
|
What Censorship Isn't
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:42:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3306 times
|
| |
|
|
When a privately-owned website enforces the TOS to which posters have explicitly
agreed, that’s not censorship.
If it results in posts being deleted, hidden, altered, or flagged in some way,
it still isn’t censorship.
Alternatively, if it is censorship, it’s voluntary self-censorship by the
poster him/herself, who has stated, by clicking through the “Before You Post”
screen, that he/she explicitly authorizes the board to handle the post in
accordance with the TOS. In essence, the poster had delegated this authority to
the host.
The point of all this is that discussions of what censorship “really is” are
interesting but not really relevant here.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) Does that apply to pay-to-view television channels too? If they purposefully leave out bits of news is it not censorship? I agree it's not the best analogy but the private=noncensored argument is a dangerous one. (...) Why not? Is it not (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) Disagree, especially in the event that the enforcement is on subjective issues. For example, Lugnet's TOS specifies that you shouldn't post that which is "profane" or "vulgar". Let's say the administration deems the word "evolution" as (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
