2 ms·

I'm willing to concede that that 'censorship' has always been an expansive term. Perhaps my perspective is just a personal idiosyncrasy. But that is really an

by gwright 10y ago

I'm willing to concede that that 'censorship' has always been an expansive term. Perhaps my perspective is just a personal idiosyncrasy. But that is really ancillary to my point that in order to communicate clearly about the public policy issues involved it is important to avoid the generic use of the term because that obfuscates the arguments making it harder to explore the issues. In particular I think that in the US context, 1st Amendment proscriptions regarding freedom of speech and of the press are often implicitly assumed to be reasons why Google, for example, shouldn't be able to have a restrictive editorial policy. The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense. Sure it is possible to talk about 'censorship' in the 'general sense' but that is uninteresting to me and I would argue isn't very helpful in understanding the distinct aspects of different types of 'censorship'.

hueving 10y ago
>The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense. The very presence of anti-censorship in the 1st amendment is the reason many people in the US get outraged when companies censor views. They view free speech as a fundamental right, even though the 1st amendment only applies to the government.
- r_smart 10y ago
  The first amendment only applies to the government, but it elucidates a natural right all people have, and thus forbids the government from tampering with it. Other people should also not tamper with it, but enforcing that is beyond the scope of the first amendment. Free speech is a fundamental right, which is why every Western democracy at least pays lip service to the idea.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The very presence of anti-censorship in the 1st amendment is the reason many people in the US get outraged when companies censor views. No, it's not. The value of free expression and the concept of the marketplace of ideas to which it is essential predates and goes beyond the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment isn't the cause, it's a product of the same cause. Though it's a lot trickier to apply the concept to private censorship, which is both, in one sense, an exercise of the right of free speech and, potentially, a restriction on it in some cases. Government censorship is a lot more of a clear issue (even if there are issues of drawing the precise boundary.)

by gwright 10y ago

hueving 10y ago

>The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense. The very presence of anti-censorship in the 1st amendment is the reason many people in the US get outraged when companies censor views. They view free speech as a fundamental right, even though the 1st amendment only applies to the government.

r_smart 10y ago
The first amendment only applies to the government, but it elucidates a natural right all people have, and thus forbids the government from tampering with it. Other people should also not tamper with it, but enforcing that is beyond the scope of the first amendment. Free speech is a fundamental right, which is why every Western democracy at least pays lip service to the idea.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The very presence of anti-censorship in the 1st amendment is the reason many people in the US get outraged when companies censor views. No, it's not. The value of free expression and the concept of the marketplace of ideas to which it is essential predates and goes beyond the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment isn't the cause, it's a product of the same cause. Though it's a lot trickier to apply the concept to private censorship, which is both, in one sense, an exercise of the right of free speech and, potentially, a restriction on it in some cases. Government censorship is a lot more of a clear issue (even if there are issues of drawing the precise boundary.)