3 ms·
I think there is an important distinction to be made. Censorship that is meant to block all criticism of the current rulers to keep them in power forever is un
by fauigerzigerk 8y ago
I think there is an important distinction to be made.
Censorship that is meant to block all criticism of the current rulers to keep them in power forever is unlike all other kinds of censorship because it is self-referential and self-reinforcing.
If a government censors, say, sites that distribute pirated movies or sites that glamorise suicide, I can still protest against that ban or campaign to get a different government elected.
But if a government censors both those sites and my criticism of the ban, then that is a wholly different kind of censorship.
Making that distinction is not hypocrisy.
- ehsankia 8y agoAny censorship is almost be definition self-reinforcing. If you censor something, there's less of it and the ideas that aren't censored proliferate more, getting stronger.
- fauigerzigerk 8y agoIn that sense, censoring criticism of rulers in general is doubly self-reinforcing. It reinforces the specific laws and rules they make and it reinforces obedience, lack of critical thinking and intransparency of the censorship decisions themselves. I don't see how anyone could deny that censoring political opposition in general acts on a meta level and is therefore categorically different from all other stuff that gets censored.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]