Subject:
|
Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:40:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3833 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
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!
|
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 is lousy by every objective standard, and I pitch it
to Random House. Are they censoring me because they choose not to publish 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,
|
You explictly agree to restrict your own speech when you agree to the TOS. The
first amendment does nothing whatsoever to guarantee your right to free speech
in a private forum.
| |
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.
|
If it’s obscured to the point of being made effectively inaccessible, then you
may be correct. But in the case of a private forum, the price of entry to the
forum is the abiding by the TOS, even if that entails a voluntary curtailing of
one’s right to free speech.
If you spout off a string of obscenities and get yourself booted off of LUGNET,
then you are still free to spout your obscenities in the public square. This is
much the same as that idiot Imus; he violated the TOS of his contract (and cost
CBS a bunch of sponsor-money), so he was axed. But he can still spew his idiocy
on the street corner or in a park, so his freedom of speech is not denied; it’s
just that he no longer has the privilege of speaking on CBS’ licensed airwaves.
| |
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.
|
That’s probably because I’m the most smartest of all, but I’ve learned to live
with that.
Anyway, a private forum’s choice to deny something or not is the business of the
private forum. But if the user can still readily get that information
elsewhere, then it’s not censorship. If the information is available solely
through that private forum, then the user is simply being required to abide by
the TOS.
What you’re arguing, in effect, is that anything short of a fullscale
free-for-all is censorship. In fact, the choice of private entities to restrict
speech within their boundaries is entirely consistent with the first amendment.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) Just because something is a legal restriction of free speech doesn't make it not censorship. Free speech is not a complimentary set of censorship and the two can in fact overlap, likewise the absence of one does not guarantee the presence of (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) So, you're arguing that censorship can only be effected by a government, or illegally? By illegally, I'm suggesting that a private citizen/organization violates an agreement such as public free speech or their own TOS. Essentially, I think (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
