Subject:
|
Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:48:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3726 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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 hasten to add that he was commendably respectful of the TOS.
|
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 of their policy before you sent your kids there, but it’s still
censorship!
| |
Anyway, people objected that the TOS was unclear. Well, too bad. It was
unclear at the time of sign-up, and by signing-up, all participants
explicitly accepted it.
|
It seems that you’re suggesting that if you agree that your particular input
might get removed, that somehow it’s not censorship. I think what you’re talking
about more along the lines of waiving your right to free speech, which is not
the same as saying that something is no longer deemed censorship. It’s just that
you agreed that censorship was acceptable.
| |
Okay, but it’s voluntary self-censorship, as I mentioned. You’re right about
the problematic connotation of the word, but that’s kind of what we’re
debating, isn’t it?
|
I came in at the point where I wanted to clarify that while censorship may be
defined strictly as a flat *denial* of access to information, that censorship
may also include instances where information isn’t necessarily denied, but
somehow obscured.
A further point that’s been made which I agree deserves attention is what level
of “denial” constitutes censorship, if the censored or observing party truly
doesn’t care that information was removed and/or omitted by another party.
I have to admit you’re the only one I’ve seen so far in this debate who seems to
think that flat denial of information by parties in power might somehow NOT
constitute censorship.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
