From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Wed May 29 2002 - 22:10:08 MDT
I agree, as far as Samantha goes, but would amend that to say that censorship
involves
force _or_ _subterfuge_.
Editing out the unpersons from old May Day photographs, redacting list
contents, destroying "inconvenient" backups--these are censorship of the
second kind.
"Censorship"'s usage has gotten cranky in its brittle and inflated old age.
"You can't tell me what to say!" is something some adolescents never outgrow.
Watering hole, outreach locale or showcase? Here we are again...
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Hal Finney wrote:
>
> >
> > Asking what is or is not censorship is a semantic question and there is
> > no unique answer.
<snip>
> I disagree it is a "semantic question". Words have pretty
> straightforward meanings at times. Censorship is prohibition of
> the expressing of certain thoughts and opinions by the use of
> force. Nothing else is remotely censorship. Saying "I
> disapprove of this topic and its treatment and wish you would
> stop or take it elsewhere" is not and never will be censorship.
> To call it such is ridiculous.
<snip>
> More abstraction will not make missing realities right in front
> of your face less likely - it will make it more likely you do so
> and more egregiously. We didn't find emotional reactions so
> upsetting. We found rampannt bigotry and unfeeling discussion
> upsetting and still do, the ones of us who are still here at least.
>
> Please pay attention to the real level of problem that led to
> some valued members leaving. Don't gloss it over.
>
> - samantha
--
butler a t comp - lib . o r g
I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization.
Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:29 MST