Subject:
|
Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:05:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
|
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
incredibly dynamic Bloks Forum, which are more
similar to online conversations with the website serving as facilitator.
You’re attempting to compare two very different things:
1. An interactive forum in which participants communicate with each other
through the medium of the website and subject to the TOS
and
2. An information outlet in which the outlet alleges a responsibility to provide
information in an unaltered fashion
It strikes me that there is a clear difference in intent and expectation between
these two, so that the applicability of the term “censorship” must apply
differently as well.
| |
| |
If it results in posts being deleted, hidden, altered, or flagged in some
way, it still isn’t censorship.
|
Why not? Is it not censorship because the person agrees to the rules first?
If a citizen votes for a politician who states he will increase censorship
does it cease being censorship simply because the person has ‘signed up’ to
that policy by voting for them?
|
Analogies between a private organization and government authority don’t quite
work, because the government has the power (if not the authority) to forbid all
outlet of the information, whereas a private organzation can only prevent its
outlet within the confines of the organization’s influence. But by the logic of
your question, it’s censorship unless every private organization dispenses every
piece of information.
| |
| |
The point of all this is that discussions of what censorship “really is” are
interesting but not really relevant here.
|
|
| |
They are quite relevant. If murfling is a form of censorship then it is a
euphemised form of censorship, if it is not a form of censorship then it is
not a euphemised form of censorship. What censorship is lies at the very
heart of the matter of whether or not the word “murfle” is a euphemism
(Richie’s point which sparked most of the debate).
|
If murfling is accepted under the TOS of a privately-owned forum for interactive
discussion, then it’s not censorship. It’s simple enforcement of contract.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
