4 ms·

"It's not censorship, it's just <...>. And any ways, you still have <XYZ>". No, it absolutely is censorship. This is a cowardly defense of it, trying to refram

"It's not censorship, it's just <...>. And any ways, you still have <XYZ>". No, it absolutely is censorship. This is a cowardly defense of it, trying to reframe it as something understandable. Edit: The intellectual dishonesty from the censorship apologists is more than I can bear. Is it so hard to delineate between a publisher ceasing to print a book because there is no demand, and a publisher refusing to publish a book because it is offensive? We've become a society that can't tell it's right hand from it's left.

question000 6y ago
Ok then you've convinced me censorship is good. Don't downvote this just because you disagree, that would expose your hypocrisy.
- maxwell 6y ago
  Downvoting isn't censorship. Neither are warning labels. NSFW and spoiler tags work well enough (e.g. on reddit), that's the model that should be extended rather than content removal. Even something like MPAA ratings would beat content removal. See Lady and the Tramp (which they're already monkeying with, and probably won't make it much longer altogether) vs. "Stark Raving Dad". I'm sure I'm missing something, I don't know enough about the Telecommunications Act of '96, but it seems like as soon as you start actively removing content (as opposed to labeling, for optional group- or user-level screening) or editorializing it (as opposed to aggregating and determining what's statistically trending), section 230 goes out the window.
  - question000 6y ago
    No you're just being semantic about it. Your suppressing my thoughts by pushing them down the page where nobody can see and providing a big wall of text denial that amounts to "I think I'm right."
    - nickelcitymario 6y ago
      I can't tell if you're being satirical or not?
Bjartr 6y ago
For a publisher, where is the line between editorial control and censorship?
user-the-name 6y ago
So is every book that has gone out of print censored?
nickelcitymario 6y ago
So every publisher that's ever reject any piece of work is a censor? It's not censorship to decide to no longer publish something. It's only censorship if someone comes along and stops you from publishing it. The owners of the work have decided to stop publishing it. They have that right. No one can force them to publish a damn thing. Forcing someone to say or publish something they do not believe in anymore (or perhaps never believed in) is dystopian and tyrannical.
kolektiv 6y ago
Publishers are a business, generally speaking. To address your edit: What is the upside to a publisher of publishing a book widely (though not universally) considered offensive? Especially if that books is aimed at children? Clearly, they consider what demand there is to be not worth the expense and potential reputational risk of satisfying. You can say that this last part is a form of censorship - but in reality, it's just how cultures work. There are things which are considered taboo. You may do them if you wish, but you have no right to say they should be consequence free.
- bjt2n3904 6y ago
  > What is the upside to a publisher of publishing a book widely (though not universally) considered offensive? Gosh! Now that I think of it, I honestly can't see any! Publishers are directly responsible for giving a platform to thought, and therefore, for giving that thought legs. I only regret not thinking of this centuries ago, and using it to cen^H^H^H decide not to publish many of the things today that are considered normal, back when they were considered widely offensive!
kmeisthax 6y ago
The problem is that there's no consistent principle for calling this censorship without entirely gutting the concept of free speech and replacing it with some politicized caricature of itself. If we use the US 1st Amendment approach, then publishing is a speech action, and refusal to publish is also a speech action. Specifically, the decision to not publish a book in this particular case is political speech - the publisher stopped publishing these books specifically to signal that they are opposed to forms of racism. This is, again, free speech, and telling the publisher that they cannot refuse to publish a book is a form of censorship. What argument are you going to use to say that someone should be allowed to write an offensive book but that publishers should not be allowed to refuse it's publication? If your argument is that book publishers should act as common carriers, that would imply a significant reworking of how publishers operate. This would be akin to saying that hedge fund managers have to buy all stocks equally regardless of performance or fundamentals. Remember, publishers are not just "people who publish things", they are companies that invest capital into creative works. This requires them to take highly subjective opinions about the works they look at on a day to day basis, because they are making investment decisions. This is entirely not what a common carrier is and regulating them as such would basically be turning the entire market into self-publishing, with all the problems that would entail. If your argument is that book publishers have too much market power, that... doesn't really work. Competition and antitrust law targets entities who take action to restrict trade. So, for example, if another publisher had said, "Stop publishing these Dr. Seuss books or we'll pay all our distributors to drop your other books", then that would be an antitrust concern. However, someone themselves deciding not to publish something doesn't make them a monopolist. There are plenty of valid reasons not to publish something. You yourself mentioned not wanting to print a book because there is no demand being different from publishers not deciding to publish for political reasons. However, what if I were to tell you that those are the same thing? The Dr. Seuss books they decided not to publish weren't just racist, they were also unpopular. It turns out people just really didn't like them, probably because of the racist caricatures in the books. And again - just as the publisher is allowed to decide not to publish books they don't like, I'm allowed to not buy books that I don't like. The dichotomy between refusing to publish for economic reasons and for social or moral reasons is a false one. If you're going to argue that social power is being abused to censor people, I mean... you're not wrong, you're just inconsistent. The very thing we're talking about - the racist caricatures that are in the books - are themselves an act of using social power to harm people. So, sure, you can use a social power argument... but now you have to consider things like social justice, intersectionality, and so forth. Remember, the whole point of racial caricature was to do social violence to a particular group of people - why would that be more protectable under this theory of justice?

question000 6y ago

Ok then you've convinced me censorship is good. Don't downvote this just because you disagree, that would expose your hypocrisy.

maxwell 6y ago
Downvoting isn't censorship. Neither are warning labels. NSFW and spoiler tags work well enough (e.g. on reddit), that's the model that should be extended rather than content removal. Even something like MPAA ratings would beat content removal. See Lady and the Tramp (which they're already monkeying with, and probably won't make it much longer altogether) vs. "Stark Raving Dad". I'm sure I'm missing something, I don't know enough about the Telecommunications Act of '96, but it seems like as soon as you start actively removing content (as opposed to labeling, for optional group- or user-level screening) or editorializing it (as opposed to aggregating and determining what's statistically trending), section 230 goes out the window.
- question000 6y ago
  No you're just being semantic about it. Your suppressing my thoughts by pushing them down the page where nobody can see and providing a big wall of text denial that amounts to "I think I'm right."
  - nickelcitymario 6y ago
    I can't tell if you're being satirical or not?

Bjartr 6y ago

For a publisher, where is the line between editorial control and censorship?

user-the-name 6y ago

So is every book that has gone out of print censored?

nickelcitymario 6y ago

So every publisher that's ever reject any piece of work is a censor? It's not censorship to decide to no longer publish something. It's only censorship if someone comes along and stops you from publishing it. The owners of the work have decided to stop publishing it. They have that right. No one can force them to publish a damn thing. Forcing someone to say or publish something they do not believe in anymore (or perhaps never believed in) is dystopian and tyrannical.

kolektiv 6y ago

Publishers are a business, generally speaking. To address your edit: What is the upside to a publisher of publishing a book widely (though not universally) considered offensive? Especially if that books is aimed at children? Clearly, they consider what demand there is to be not worth the expense and potential reputational risk of satisfying. You can say that this last part is a form of censorship - but in reality, it's just how cultures work. There are things which are considered taboo. You may do them if you wish, but you have no right to say they should be consequence free.

bjt2n3904 6y ago
> What is the upside to a publisher of publishing a book widely (though not universally) considered offensive? Gosh! Now that I think of it, I honestly can't see any! Publishers are directly responsible for giving a platform to thought, and therefore, for giving that thought legs. I only regret not thinking of this centuries ago, and using it to cen^H^H^H decide not to publish many of the things today that are considered normal, back when they were considered widely offensive!

kmeisthax 6y ago

The problem is that there's no consistent principle for calling this censorship without entirely gutting the concept of free speech and replacing it with some politicized caricature of itself. If we use the US 1st Amendment approach, then publishing is a speech action, and refusal to publish is also a speech action. Specifically, the decision to not publish a book in this particular case is political speech - the publisher stopped publishing these books specifically to signal that they are opposed to forms of racism. This is, again, free speech, and telling the publisher that they cannot refuse to publish a book is a form of censorship. What argument are you going to use to say that someone should be allowed to write an offensive book but that publishers should not be allowed to refuse it's publication? If your argument is that book publishers should act as common carriers, that would imply a significant reworking of how publishers operate. This would be akin to saying that hedge fund managers have to buy all stocks equally regardless of performance or fundamentals. Remember, publishers are not just "people who publish things", they are companies that invest capital into creative works. This requires them to take highly subjective opinions about the works they look at on a day to day basis, because they are making investment decisions. This is entirely not what a common carrier is and regulating them as such would basically be turning the entire market into self-publishing, with all the problems that would entail. If your argument is that book publishers have too much market power, that... doesn't really work. Competition and antitrust law targets entities who take action to restrict trade. So, for example, if another publisher had said, "Stop publishing these Dr. Seuss books or we'll pay all our distributors to drop your other books", then that would be an antitrust concern. However, someone themselves deciding not to publish something doesn't make them a monopolist. There are plenty of valid reasons not to publish something. You yourself mentioned not wanting to print a book because there is no demand being different from publishers not deciding to publish for political reasons. However, what if I were to tell you that those are the same thing? The Dr. Seuss books they decided not to publish weren't just racist, they were also unpopular. It turns out people just really didn't like them, probably because of the racist caricatures in the books. And again - just as the publisher is allowed to decide not to publish books they don't like, I'm allowed to not buy books that I don't like. The dichotomy between refusing to publish for economic reasons and for social or moral reasons is a false one. If you're going to argue that social power is being abused to censor people, I mean... you're not wrong, you're just inconsistent. The very thing we're talking about - the racist caricatures that are in the books - are themselves an act of using social power to harm people. So, sure, you can use a social power argument... but now you have to consider things like social justice, intersectionality, and so forth. Remember, the whole point of racial caricature was to do social violence to a particular group of people - why would that be more protectable under this theory of justice?