3 ms·
>This is censorship - not really, censorship in the German legal context [...] Censorship, and the legal concept of censorship, are such very different things
by tux3 5y ago
>This is censorship - not really, censorship in the German legal context [...]
Censorship, and the legal concept of censorship, are such very different things that using one as the response to the other is silly!
The local lawmaker's definition of censorship in a legal context, when transposed in a non-legal discussion, is just one country's opinion, not an authoritative answer to whether something is censorship.
- brazzy 5y agoWhat is the authoritative answer then?
- uniqueuid 5y agoI'm not sure I follow - the definition of censorship is in some way the most important question here. It's absolutely vital to understand that prohibiting some speech has been a core feature of Germany's democracy since 1945. At the same time, the public use of the word "censorship" has diluted so much (especially online) that it's hardly useful. So I'd argue that it totally makes sense to try and define what we're talking about, and how and why the state intervenes.
- OrderlyTiamat 5y agoThe reaction is, I think, to the general form of this argument: > Argument: This is X - not really, X defined legally (..) Which is in itself an often occurring argument which (in my opinion) isn't extremely useful. You are transposing the legal definition of censorship into this argument. This is perfectly alright, except most people who make the argument "this is censorship" aren't referring to the legal definition of censorship. So your counterpoint is moot. I'm not trying to say that those people are right necessarily, just that arguing against these points requires other arguments than this one. (edited for clarity)