3 ms·

>This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. Copyright claims that result in reduced access to media are censorship.

throwaway98121 8y ago
Thanks I was going to respond and say the same thing.
mmsimanga 8y ago
As someone who has lived under a dictatorship, there is a difference. Laws in "democratic" countries and dictatorships don't differ so much. The difference is how they are enforced and what recourse you as a citizen have. In a dictatorship, the government rules that a show/film/song violates the law. No one not willing to go to jail challenges it. In a democracy, you are free to post a rant or picket because you disagree with the ruling. You are probably allowed to appeal the ruling and you wont disappear if you do appeal the ruling. It may look like both the UK and Saudi are censoring the media but I can definitely tell you it is not the same thing.
- justtopost 8y ago
  Free to rant and picket is not free. If your government does not represent its people, holding signs and yelling is not recourse.
- intopieces 8y ago
  Sure, there are definitely different degrees of censorship. Sometimes it happens for good reason -- slander, libel, inciting violence, exposing children to pornography. Sometimes it happens for bad reasons -- to suppress different opinions, to intimidate individuals, or simply to exert undue power over another one for monetary gain. But censorship is censorship, and when we refuse to call it by its name, we allow ourselves to forget that there is a powerful force controlling what we can see and consume. That kind of power must be checked, and checked always, and we must constantly re-affirm our consent to that power just as often.
  - mmsimanga 8y ago
    Look I don't know why the UK does not allow parlianmentary footage to be used in anything other news/documentary programs. I have to admit I don't see this as totally unreasonable. Like all laws they are pros and cons to the law. Since footage is available to public just not in movie there is nothing stopping you viewing the footage. That surely cannot be sensorship but some sort of ill defined copyright application. I am not sure I want to public funds to create footage for movie makers to use to push their own agendas.
Dylan16807 8y ago
That's all copyright claims. Are you sure you want to define it that way? The speech isn't being restricted. The background footage is. Even if it is a stupid law.
dogma1138 8y ago
This claim didn’t reduce access to media, this isn’t censorship as they couldn’t care less about the actual message or tried to block it on political grounds. This is HBO likely not being familiar with obscure British legislation as some others have pointed out they had to use dogs instead of actual SCTOUS footage as there is a US law that forbids footage of the Supreme Court from being used. The fact that you even consider this censorship only proves you likely never experienced what true censorship means.
- slededit 8y ago
  There is no Supreme Court footage at all. They refuse to allow cameras in the chamber. There’s no law enforcing this except those which give the judges full control over their proceedings. They could let CNN in tomorrow if they so decided.

throwaway98121 8y ago

Thanks I was going to respond and say the same thing.

mmsimanga 8y ago

As someone who has lived under a dictatorship, there is a difference. Laws in "democratic" countries and dictatorships don't differ so much. The difference is how they are enforced and what recourse you as a citizen have. In a dictatorship, the government rules that a show/film/song violates the law. No one not willing to go to jail challenges it. In a democracy, you are free to post a rant or picket because you disagree with the ruling. You are probably allowed to appeal the ruling and you wont disappear if you do appeal the ruling. It may look like both the UK and Saudi are censoring the media but I can definitely tell you it is not the same thing.

justtopost 8y ago
Free to rant and picket is not free. If your government does not represent its people, holding signs and yelling is not recourse.
intopieces 8y ago
Sure, there are definitely different degrees of censorship. Sometimes it happens for good reason -- slander, libel, inciting violence, exposing children to pornography. Sometimes it happens for bad reasons -- to suppress different opinions, to intimidate individuals, or simply to exert undue power over another one for monetary gain. But censorship is censorship, and when we refuse to call it by its name, we allow ourselves to forget that there is a powerful force controlling what we can see and consume. That kind of power must be checked, and checked always, and we must constantly re-affirm our consent to that power just as often.
- mmsimanga 8y ago
  Look I don't know why the UK does not allow parlianmentary footage to be used in anything other news/documentary programs. I have to admit I don't see this as totally unreasonable. Like all laws they are pros and cons to the law. Since footage is available to public just not in movie there is nothing stopping you viewing the footage. That surely cannot be sensorship but some sort of ill defined copyright application. I am not sure I want to public funds to create footage for movie makers to use to push their own agendas.

Dylan16807 8y ago

That's all copyright claims. Are you sure you want to define it that way? The speech isn't being restricted. The background footage is. Even if it is a stupid law.

dogma1138 8y ago

This claim didn’t reduce access to media, this isn’t censorship as they couldn’t care less about the actual message or tried to block it on political grounds. This is HBO likely not being familiar with obscure British legislation as some others have pointed out they had to use dogs instead of actual SCTOUS footage as there is a US law that forbids footage of the Supreme Court from being used. The fact that you even consider this censorship only proves you likely never experienced what true censorship means.

slededit 8y ago
There is no Supreme Court footage at all. They refuse to allow cameras in the chamber. There’s no law enforcing this except those which give the judges full control over their proceedings. They could let CNN in tomorrow if they so decided.