 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Timothy Gould
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Timothy P. Smith
|
| | | | | (...) Every news show leaves out bits of news. Is all news censored? Every library excludes some books. Is that censorship? Tim (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | | (...) It depends largely on their reasons for doing it. If it is to purposefully bias the news (eg. render something not-true through omission) then it is censorship. But as I said it's not the best analogy. Tim (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) 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, (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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! (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) For these purposes I think that censorship refers to an action taken contrary to the wishes of the person supplying the content. A discussion of news outlets necessarily expands the debate beyond LUGNET and similar websites, such as the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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. (...) (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Tim David
|
| | | | (...) SNIP (...) Hey, we don't want any mention of THAT place here! ;-) Tim (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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! (18 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | (...) Unoriginal parents? Tim (18 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | (...) Rather, only one pair of original parents. ;o) Giving me a name appropriate for Jewish men born in the 1920's (and random bad-guy henchmen) was soo creative! -Lenny (18 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
