 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Hey, that's pretty good. In essence, omission is not censorship; restriction is. That works at least in the public arena, but it still doesn't apply IMO to a private forum. Still, it's a good rule of thumb. Dave! (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
