Subject:
|
Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:48:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3460 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
When a privately-owned website enforces the TOS to which posters have
explicitly agreed, that’s not censorship.
|
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 “profane”, and so it starts cancelling posts with the word “evolution” in
them, because they feel that it violates the TOS. Censorship? It sure is in *MY*
book!
But the more I think about it, even enforcement of non-subjective issues is
still censorship. If you tried to post a binary computer virus to Lugnet, Lugnet
will try and censor that content! It’s explicitly against the rules to post
binary files, so it’s far beyond clear that such censorship would and/or should
take place. But just because Lugnet has told you beforehand that it censors
binary content doesn’t mean that when it actually DOES so that it’s somehow not
censorship. Lugnet disallows particular content, and doing so is censorship.
It’s just that it’s totally fine.
Maybe the hangup is that even though censorship isn’t necessarily a bad thing,
but people seem think it is. In the present discussion context, it seems people
explicitly want to avoid saying “Lugnet censors content”. And that’s just not
true. It does. Not very *OFTEN*, mind you, and not without *good reason* (or so
I’d like to think), but just because the word “censorship” has a negative
connotation doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply.
But whether or not murfling represents censorship is another issue entirely. I
personally don’t think it does, although I could see the the argument for the
“gray area” starting to begin at murfling.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| --snip-- (...) I think this hits the nail firmly on the head. Censorship is most definitely not always a bad thing. Child pornography is, and should be, censored in almost every country in the world. Ones anti-virus email filter censors ones email (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | What Censorship Isn't
|
| 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
