 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | (...) From what (and how) I've read no-one has claimed that murfling is eroding anyone's rights. They have claimed that the term is a euphemistic way of saying censored and that the use of euphemism is bad (at least from my reading). From your (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | (...) On the contrary, people have said it is bad. Describing something as "Orwellian" is making a judgment call about it- "Orwellian" is not good. And Todd's coining of the term was because he felt this particular solution had never been developed (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Bob Parker
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Nope. The child and parents can still read the book at the local library or at the bookstore or even online. The private school is choosing not to carry a particular book on private property, which isn't censorship. Suppose I write a book that (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) Just because something is a legal restriction of free speech doesn't make it not censorship. Free speech is not a complimentary set of censorship and the two can in fact overlap, likewise the absence of one does not guarantee the presence of (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) What's the standard, then? Does censorship cover anything that doesn't include everything? That would define "censorship" so thinly that it would have no meaning at all. But if we insetad define "censorship" to be an action of government, then (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Censorship Isn't —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) So, you're arguing that censorship can only be effected by a government, or illegally? By illegally, I'm suggesting that a private citizen/organization violates an agreement such as public free speech or their own TOS. Essentially, I think (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
