Subject:
|
Re: Defining censorship
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:12:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4077 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
-snip-
> Censorship?
I like your example. It provides a descent example of how restricting access,
but not denying access, can be censorship.
> I'd say so. They make you jump through such ridiculous hoops that very few
> people would actually want to run the gauntlet. But technically, they haven't
> *denied* you access. They've just made sure you REALLY, REALLY mean it when you
> want to watch certain content.
What bothers me about your example is the accumulation of personal information
in exchange for the material. Government have historically used such
information to then persecute the requesting individual. The cause and effect
are not direct, but indirectly still exists. The giving of information provides
the gov't with the ability to punish the individual - the individual has to
trust that the gov't will not misuse the personal information. I would say, in
my un-legal opinion, that this violates the right to privacy.
Let me ask a counter-example:
A theoretically government has limited access to a particular book. In order to
get access to the book you have to go to the Library's front desk and ask for it
by name. No one takes your name, you fill out no form. Access to the book
cannot be denied, but you must go to this library and ask for it by name.
Is that censorship?
I would say no, because although the information is limited it is accessible
without giving anything away (not even personal information, and information is
a trade-able commodity). I see murfling like this.
The intended message of murfling is: "Some people might not want to look at
this, but if you do, you can, by clicking this link here." The information is
not removed (canceled, deleted), but it is set apart so that people who wish,
for whatever reason, to not read 'vulgar' language can easily avoid it.
Because Lugnet is visited by a large number of people from a variety of
background, the need was perceived and murfling was a possible solution. People
can continue to curse all they want without receiving pesky emails from Admins
to knock it off, but people who do not wish to read cursing (for whatever
reason) can easily tell if questionable content is in a post and decide for
themselves to read it or not.
Since access to information is not removed and it is not excessively difficult
to gain access to that information (just an extra little click), I do not see
murfling as censorship.
> Basically, in my book once you're being forced by authority into taking grossly
> unusual steps to obtain effectively arbitrary content, that starts to become
> censorship. And yes, how you define "grossly unusual" is a shade of gray.
In regards to murfling, is an extra click "grossly unusual"?
-Lenny
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Defining censorship
|
| (...) Agree! I set up the example to intentionally sound like the type of government that we would be more anxious to call "censoring". Arguably, I could've done without the lengthy applications and fingerprinting and such, and I would *still* call (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Defining censorship
|
| (...) As I mentioned elsewhere, I personally would consider things other than strict denials as censorship, although I agree that murfling isn't strong enough to be what I would consider to be censorship. For example, let's pretend that the (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
61 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
|
|
|
|
