4 ms·

Not true at all. Censorship is any type of redaction or restriction, no matter who performs it. You are confusing censorship with a breach of the first amendme

Not true at all. Censorship is any type of redaction or restriction, no matter who performs it. You are confusing censorship with a breach of the first amendment.

gamblor956 6y ago
"Censorship" comes from the roman word, censor, which was an office of the Roman government in charge of regulating morality. IOW, censorship has always specifically meant government restrictions speech. It is only recently that censorship has been broadened to include no-governmental actors, and that broadening is not universally accepted.
- qball 6y ago
  >It is only recently If by 1946 you mean "only recently", then sure (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama). The concept that no company be allowed to enclose the commons has existed ever since the concept of the commons existed; and the Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Read the actual case and not the Wikipedia summary. The ruling only applies to restrictions on public rights of way (in this case, meaning the public easements over otherwise private property). Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons. No, they haven't. SCOTUS ruled that in limited circumstances, private property can be treated as a public commons if the property owner holds it out for general public use. Following the mall cases, many malls began restricting the acceptable uses on their properties, which is why you don't get harassed by political activists every time you go to the mall. (In a nutshell, open mall spaces are now designated as transit spaces rather than as general use spaces, and thus the entire lineage of SCOTUS cases no longer apply to privately held malls.)

Not true at all. Censorship is any type of redaction or restriction, no matter who performs it. You are confusing censorship with a breach of the first amendment.

gamblor956 6y ago

"Censorship" comes from the roman word, censor, which was an office of the Roman government in charge of regulating morality. IOW, censorship has always specifically meant government restrictions speech. It is only recently that censorship has been broadened to include no-governmental actors, and that broadening is not universally accepted.

qball 6y ago
>It is only recently If by 1946 you mean "only recently", then sure (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama). The concept that no company be allowed to enclose the commons has existed ever since the concept of the commons existed; and the Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Read the actual case and not the Wikipedia summary. The ruling only applies to restrictions on public rights of way (in this case, meaning the public easements over otherwise private property). Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons. No, they haven't. SCOTUS ruled that in limited circumstances, private property can be treated as a public commons if the property owner holds it out for general public use. Following the mall cases, many malls began restricting the acceptable uses on their properties, which is why you don't get harassed by political activists every time you go to the mall. (In a nutshell, open mall spaces are now designated as transit spaces rather than as general use spaces, and thus the entire lineage of SCOTUS cases no longer apply to privately held malls.)