Subject:
|
Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:23:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3646 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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
|
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
you look at your cable contract they can broadcast whatever they like (so long
as it doesn’t break laws wrt things like slander, libel etc.).
As I said it’s not the best analogy but the problem is there aren’t really any
good analogies thanks to the interactivity of the medium. The one I chose may
not be the best but it’s not (IMO) quite as different as you make out either.
| |
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.
|
While I agree that intent can have an influence on censorship (eg. being
physically unable to broadcast all news from every angle so having to choose
what information you broadcast) it is not able to magic away censorship merely
by arguing that the intent and expectation are the same.
Is a private school which refuses to teach, carry or mention Tom Sawyer (with
the acceptance of the school’s parents) censoring the book?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I’d like to see an analogy that does work (as I said before I don’t think
there is one). The thoroughness of censorship does not, IMO, effect whether or
not something is censorship, merely how effective the censorship is.
| |
| |
| |
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!
|
I don’t see that censorship as part of enforcement of contract is not
censorship, it’s just a more acceptable form of censorship. I chose to accept an
NDA, but it is still a form of censorship.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) I think that you misread me. I was referring to such an outlet that does allege that responsibility. I'm not referring to news outlets in general, which may or may not allege responsibility. Those seem to be two very different cases. (...) (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
