NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/censorsh/10078

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 7.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:10078 alt.feminism:7513
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!newstand.syr.edu!greeny
From: [e-mail] (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: soc.feminism editorial policy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 02:14:23 EST
Lines: 156

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>| Follow-ups to alt.censorship, since it seems appropriate at this point...
>
>I don't think that's a good idea at all, if we're discussing
>whether or not newsgroup moderation is censorship.  First of
>all, the discussion arose out of a dispute about the
>moderation policy in soc.feminism.  We can't conveniently
>cross-post to soc.feminism, but alt.feminism serves as a
>kind of soc.feminism.d, so it will do.  I'd like also to
>cross-post to some other groups where this sort of question
>has come up before, often with a lot of conflict, but maybe
>we need to boil down the issues a bit first.

Given that nobody else seems to be contributing to the discussion,
and that it has essentially turned into a general discussion of
censorship--not soc.feminism, I don't really see the point...


>|>| I disagree, but as I have stated, I am not particularly interested in debating
>|>| the semantics of the term "censorship" at this point.
>
>In the article of this thread to which I first responded,
>you said
>
>jsg:
>| Why would I critique the moderation policy of a group which I do not read?
>| For several reasons.  First, a major theme of interest to many of us who
>| read alt.censorship is the question of exactly what constitutes "censorship."
>
>Have you changed your mind?  When, and how come?


First, recall that the latter quote was followed by:

>(Or, if we were to get into an extended discussion--what constitutes what
>I would call "bad" censorship--but that's a *really* involved discussion...)


The reconciliation is:


1) I usually just cop out and use the term "censorship" in place of an
   explicitly modified term like "bad censorship" when I'm not looking
   to get into a full discussion of my interpretation of the semantics of
   "censorship."

   (Recall that this was reposted verbatim from an email discussion.)

2) While frustration in past discussions on alt.censorship minimizes the
   frequency with which I discuss the semantic issues there these days
   (These days, I usually limit my self to one-on-one email, if I get
   frustrated enough reading a thread, to comment on the semantics...)
   I'm always hopeful that, through discussion, others may tend toward
   the position (on the semantics) that I espouse, even if I'm not involved.

   As a result, I'm glad to encourage such discussions--I just try to
   limit my direct involvement in debating the semantics.


>| Since the distinctions that most people make between "censorship"
>| and "somthing else" are so wildly subjective (that they would be impossible
>| to agree upon), I find it much more useful to have explicit distinctions
>| made between what people think is "good censorship" and "bad censorship."
>|
>| (And I don't mean the difference between "left-wing" censorship and "right-
>| wing censorship."  I'm really referring to distinctions such as "editorial
>| control over topics is good censorship" vs. "viewpoint discrimination is
>| bad censorship" type stuff.)
>
>I don't really see the distinction here.  Editorial control
>over topics may well lead to viewpoint discrimination.

No doubt.  What I really mean to say is that "bad" and "good" can refer to
more than just "I like this opinion" and "I don't like this opinion."


>| And this is exactly the discussion that I *don't* want to get into.
>|
>| Frankly, I really don't care whether we call it "censorship" or not.  The
>| semantics is peripheral to the real questions at hand.  Most of the discussion
>| has come up because of your claims about the semantics of censorship, which I
>| interpreted (correctly or incorrectly) to be impugning my stated interest in
>| discussing this in the first place.
>
>Forget my impugning your interest.  I'm not important.  My
>opinion of you is inconsequential in the great scheme of
>things.  Let's stick to the ideas.

I don't think you understand.  This wasn't stated as a criticism of you.
And I have no doubt that your opinion of me is probably not of great
consequence.  But like most people, when I feel (that feeling may be
incorrect--but one doesn't know at the time) as though I have been portrayed
badly, I have a tendency to "defend" myself.

It is *this* that has caused me to spend so much time discussing the issues of
semantics...


>| See above.  (And by the way, I wouldn't call myself a "leftist."  Calling
>| something "censorship" does not imply that you are seeking governmental (or
>| other) intervention to forcibly stop the "censorship.")
>
>The idea that Leftist = fan of government is a canard which
>I can't go into just now.

I don't know how my statement has been interpreted, but this is a non-sequitur
to me.


>[ Usability mentioned as a criterion of censorship or
>lack of it ]
>
>gf:
>|     . .. [I]f "usability" is a criterion, are we going to
>| >apply it to all media or only to moderated newsgroups?
>
>jsg:
>| The idea isn't necessarily applicable to "all media."  It is entirely
>| dependent upon the charter.  If the charter of a newsgroup is to facilitate
>| discussion, that's one thing.  The charter of most other media forms is
>| substantially different.
>
>So whether or not a medium or a particular channel within a
>medium can be considered censored depends on its charter?
>Could you amplify on that a little?  Suppose the charter of
>a mythical soc.socialism was that the group was to be
>moderated such that only articles favorable to socialism
>would be allowed to appear; would this be uncensored by your
>standards?  I'm confused here because I would have
>understood, from what you wrote before, that you would have
>indeed considered the mythical group to be censored, without
>regard to what its charter was.  Is this wrong?

No, you are not wrong there.  I would consider it a "censored" group.  I just
don't see anything particularly interesting about discussing the censorial
policies of a group (that amounts to a mutual admiration society) whose
charter explicitly seeks to establish such a censored discussion.


In any case, as I mentioned above, my interest in gathering the initial
information and offering a few comments (at thge outset of this thread)
was not to become engaged as one major end of a debate on either the
basic substantive questions, or the semantic issues.  My hope was to
facilitate a more diverse discussion (I would expect, making a few
contributions, myself--but that's all).


I haven't the energy to continue as a mainstay of this dialogue.


--
J. S. Greenfield                                         [e-mail]
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"