3 ms·
No, censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking. Whether you succeed or not depends on other things (in particular, an individual’s power). All
by tomp 5y ago
No, censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking.
Whether you succeed or not depends on other things (in particular, an individual’s power).
All else is a red herring. As the saying goes, ”In the Soviet Union, we have freedom of speech. But in the US, you have freedom after* speech.”
- denton-scratch 5y ago> censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking. You can't mean that seriously. If I successfully form the intention to stop someone speaking, but fail to carry through (perhaps because I don't own a police force), are you really saying that I've succeeded in censoring them? It seems to be the fashion these days to construct arguments based on redefining words. If "censorship" is a kind of intention, then there doesn't appear to be much wrong with censorship. You've redefined a word that is generally considered to refer to something bad, to mean something that isn't bad. That's sort-of OK, but it means that we have to put a glossary of definitions at the top of anything we say.
- tomp 5y agoA failed attempt at censorship/murder doesn't make something not censorship/murder. Intent matters. Fortunately, Neil Young failed.
- denton-scratch 5y agoYou're wrong; intent to murder isn't murder, unless you actually murder someone. Intent to murder isn't even an offence. Same with censorship.