Subject:
|
Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:16:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3745 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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 the other.
|
What’s the standard, then? Does censorship cover anything that doesn’t include
everything? That would define “censorship” so thinly that it would have no
meaning at all. But if we insetad define “censorship” to be an action of
government, then we avoid this problem, and we can set about coming up with some
other term to describe the process when a private entity likewise restricts
speech. That’s not an arbitrary distinction, either; a government is in the
unique position of being able to restrict access across the board, whereas a
private entity can only restrict access within its sphere of direct influence.
| |
Furthermore if the first amendment is important in determining what is or
isn’t censorship (as your last paragraph seems to imply) does that mean every
country without explicit free speech laws can’t have censorship? I think not
personally.
|
Well, the first amendment doesn’t grant anything. Instead, it guarantees
that the government doesn’t have the power to restrict (among other things) the
right of free speech, which is taken as inherent in the individual (we can
discuss “inherent rights” in another thread if you want to pursue it).
Therefore, when the government restricts that freedom, it’s censorship (outside
of accepted cases, such as “shouting fire in a theatre” or disclosing up state
secrets).
Censorship in this context is a legal concept rather than an interpersonal one,
and maybe that’s the essence of this disagreement. LUGNET and other private
entities (such as the incredibly fantastic Bloks
Forum) simply don’t have the means to censor in that capacity; all they can do
is restrict what goes on within themselves.
I would argue that in another country the right to free speech exists even if it
isn’t expressly guaranteed by that country’s Constitution. Therefore that
country can certainly engage in censorship, even if no laws exist to protect
freedom of speech there.
Dave!
(I’m heading home now and might not be online until late tonight, so don’t hold
your breath awaiting another lyrically brilliant posting from me!)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
