From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed May 29 2002 - 08:57:36 MDT
Louis writes
> From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
> > were a list moderator to end a thread, or to take any forceful
> > action whatsoever, we must conclude that censorship has occurred.
>
> You are once again confusing action and inaction that might result in
> similar situations.
>
> Taking action to stop you from talking is censorship. I.e. if I sabotage
> your computer so you can't get to the net, that would be censorship.
> Not taking action enabling you to speak is NOT censorship. I.e. channel
> four not giving you your own talk show is NOT censorship.
I know what the word "censor" means, and anyone can look it
up. Let's try to figure out what's really going on here
and what is at stake. The practice of *censorship* is
looked upon as extremely deplorable. We suppose that it's
diametrically opposed to "Freedom of Speech", which we all
support. Therefore, we must view censorship as completely
and always "evil", as John Clark said. Therefore, the
reasoning evidently goes, since we approve of list moderation,
list moderation cannot include censorship. Q.E.D.
I would have liked to stick with the usual meaning: in that
case it would be entirely accurate to say "the list moderator
on such and such a list occasionally censors discussions that
have become undignified". But perhaps the term has become
SO despicable, that you're right and we can't stick with that
anymore.
I would like to hear more opinions. Should the word be taken,
(as John Clark said), to mean jail or fining of people who
speak out, or (as Louis is saying) physical action to prevent
one from speaking?
By the way, I forgot to include Dictionary.com's definition
of the *verb* form:
cen·sor
To examine and expurgate.
and
ex·pur·gate
To remove erroneous, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise
objectionable material ... before publication.
Words exist to enable communication. If any word begins to
be problematic, it is best not to use it. Evidently, the
term "censorship" creates in most people's minds threats
of jail, fines, and use of force.
> > So it's rather general, and it would be correct usage to say
> > that "a list moderator censored a [post, thread, topic]".
>
> No. It would be an inflammatory exaggeration.
Not to me.
> > let me ask: has it in fact been a common problem on
> > lists with people engaging in discussions that by their
> > own admission have nothing to do with the obvious theme
> > of a forum?
>
> YES! This is a BIG problem. The sci.* groups are practically unusable
> because of off-topic postings by religious zealots preaching, or by
> crackpots who claim modern science is wrong. That is one of the main
> reasons that mailing lists and other MODERATED groups exist. Many people
> WANT a moderator to keep out the spam.
Thanks for the info. I agree.
> > If I saw a topic that struck me as totally unrelated to this
> > forum... What would you do? What should anyone do?
>
> Nothing. I don't own the list. If you really feel strongly, you can always
> contact the list owners to make your opinions known. But in the end, each
> list is owned by someone, and the owner of the list makes the final
> decision.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:28 MST