Subject:
|
Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:12:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3531 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton 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.
|
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?
|
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 hasten to add that he was commendably respectful of the TOS.
Anyway, people objected that the TOS was unclear. Well, too bad. It was
unclear at the time of sign-up, and by signing-up, all participants explicitly
accepted it.
The real issue isn’t whether or not the TOS is vague; it’s whether or not the
individual participant accepts the vague TOS. If he/she does accept it, then
(barring criminal issues, of course) he/she has no grounds for complaint when
the TOS is enforced. Further, if the TOS says “The forum will delete or alter
posts according to its whim,” then the poster is totally out of luck, having
explicitly accepted the open-ended possibility of deletion.
| |
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.
|
Okay, but it’s voluntary self-censorship, as I mentioned. You’re right about
the problematic connotation of the word, but that’s kind of what we’re debating,
isn’t it?
Where did the word “murfling” come from, anyway?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) Todd coined it. Altho it has since become a "bad" word, he intended it to sound a little silly. The rest of the admins loved it, expecting that the community would accept it as a compromise between no cursing and free speech. It still amazes (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) In case anyone is interested, I assume you mean this thread: (URL) Of course, BL posts are purged every 6 months so don't bother clicking on any of those links. (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) I definitely disagree. If a private school wants to exclude any and all books from its premisis talking about Darwin's evolutionary theory, that's censorship! Everyone involved might be totally fine with it, and they might have made you aware (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
