NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/censorsh/10060

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!bsu-cs!joemays
From: [e-mail] (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: soc.feminism editorial policy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:31:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN
Lines: 69

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Anderson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>> censorship.  For instance, if the _New_York_Times_ chooses
>> not to print full-page frontally-exposed nudes, it is not
>> said to be censorship, because this sort of material can
>> easily be found at the same newsstand.  If, however, the
>> nudes are excised from all publications by the government or
>> by public pressure, most people call this censorship.  I

>OK, so you maintain that if some material is barred from one medium
>because of its content, but can still be published in some other
>medium, it hasn't been censored. Isn't this analogous to saying that
>if it's banned from all publications in one country by the government,
>but is still available in some other country, then it hasn't been
>censored?

>I can't see any difference in principle between these two cases. Do
>you?

Yup.

You know, there really aren't enough monkey wrenches in this set of
gears.  I think I'll throw in another one by adding another definition
of censorship.  For my definition, I cite no dictionaries or sources
beyond my awareness of the way the word is practically applied.

I would say that censorship is the control of speech in a forum by
someone other than the owner of the forum, or the owner's selected
representative(s).

Is the NY Times not printing nudes on the front page censorship?  No,
because the selected representative of the owner of the times, the
editor, has determined that the forum will not be used in that way.
The NY Times can be seen as a vehicle of the speech of the owner.
If I choose to make and distribute pro-choice leaflets, I am not
practicing censorship by refusing to include pro-life statements
in the leaflets (my forum).  The owner (publisher) of the Times
presumably has certain purposes in publishing the times (making
money might or might not be the only one).  As the owner of that
forum, the publisher has a right to decide what will or won't be
included in it.

This is not the equivalent of censorship, because others have the right
to start their own forums to present their material, or to submit
to forums which might accept their material.  Censorship begins
when someone other than the owner of the forum begins to control
what is contained in the forum against the owner's will.

To relate this to soc.feminism, the moderators of soc.feminism have
been recognized as editors and given editorial control as long as they
practice within the guidelines of soc.feminism's charter.  Seen in this
light, the vital question is, who is the owner of the forum?  Surely
they aren't.  Who gives them permission to exercise editorial control?
The question of "ownership" in the net becomes very confused.  I can't
claim to understand the ins and outs of usenet and internet myself.
Can someone who does contribute to this?

Joe

P.S.  Is it just me, or has the discussion in this group become rather
abstracted and bland since the departure of Ed Nilges?  Isn't there
someone out there willing to make some inflammatory call for the silencing
of some group?  I know:  Silence the Armenians!  We can't have them on
the streets endangering society by saying...well...I don't know...
whatever sort of thing it is Armenians say....