Subject:
|
Re: Defining censorship
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:01:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> What bothers me about your example is the accumulation of personal
> information in exchange for the material.
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 it censorship, but I thought it made for a less potent example.
> 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'd say it walks the line about as much as murfling. I probably wouldn't call it
censorship, but I'd understand if people wanted to call it such, in an extremely
limited capacity. Actually, I guess I'd call it a little bit closer to
censorship than murfling, because:
1) Murfling is a little bit more anonymous than the library example (since you
assumably have to ask the librarian in person)
2) Viewing a non-murfled post *already* requires you to mouse-click several
times to navigate to the post, so having to do an action you *already* had to do
isn't adding much
3) The murfling system isn't as prone to abuse, because a library book is a
physical commodity, which can *intentionally* get tied up with other borrowers
(if someone wanted to, they could go out of their way to borrow it repeatedly to
prevent other people from seeing it)
4) Murfled posts are ONLY murfled via the web, and NOT by SMTP or NNTP, where
their content remains unobscured.
But yeah, I agree that I wouldn't personally call it censorship.
Perhaps a closer example to murfling with a library book would be... I dunno...
maybe having to walk down to the basement to get the book, rather than the
normal shelves. Hence, if you looked up the book *specifically*, you could tell
it was in the basement, but if you were just browsing around the "regular"
section of the library, you wouldn't see it. In fact, you'd see a placeholder on
the shelf that says "if you want this book, check the basement".
> > 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"?
I would contest anyone who wanted to claim that it was, but ultimately I
couldn't deny them that opinion if they were really adamant about it.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Defining censorship
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: -snip- (...) I like your example. It provides a descent example of how restricting access, but not denying access, can be censorship. (...) What bothers me about your example is the accumulation of (...) (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
|
|
|
|
