4 ms·

No. Preventing you from reading someone’s website is censorship.

simonh 4y ago
Closing a book shop or newspaper because it was funded by criminals isn’t censorship. That’s hysterical hyperbole. Anyway this isn’t really about reading websites particularly, it’s mainly about accessing commercial internet services like search or commercial sites. It just happens that internet publishers are also businesses so they can be affected too. However there’s nothing in this targets speech and that doesn’t seem to be the intention.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  But they're not closing the websites - they're preventing people in the UK from accessing them. To work with your analogy - this is like intercepting a shipment of newspapers, and blacking out any ads placed in them by criminals. Regardless of what the ads say - they're criminals, why should they be entitled to say "I'm innocent"? Sorry - why should they be entitled to printing press amplify their voice. They can just scream in their cells - their free speech isn't being curtailed. Who knows, maybe it is too dangerous to let them speak - but at least have the honesty to call it what it is - censorship.
  - simonh 4y ago
    It's like banning anyone in the UK ordering things from the Maffia in Italy, and it happens that one of the businesses the Maffia operates is a newspaper, so you're banned from importing it. Being a publisher isn't an end run around the rest of the law.
    - car_analogy 4y ago
      > ordering [..] importing [..] So block financial transactions with the sanctioned entities - problem solved. Unless your real intent isn't blocking money, but speech.
      - simonh 4y ago
        These people profit from the operation of these sites, or many of them anyway, that’s what is being targeted. Even in the case of a publishing site advertising revenue due to page impressions is a legitimate target.
- native_samples 4y ago
  What on earth makes you think "designated individuals" are criminals? They aren't being prosecuted, they haven't been found guilty in any court of law. They've just been blacklisted by some random civil servants and politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. Not much different to the US no fly lists.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Honestly that’s a separate issue, I don’t know about the legality of this, I’m just pointing out this is nothing to do with censorship.
dgfitz 4y ago
cen·sorship /ˈsensərSHip/ noun 1.The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. Does this fit that definition? I would argue no it does not but I’m open to be convinced otherwise.
- toast0 4y ago
  It's suppression or prohibition of etc. And it's because the government (politics) deems it unacceptable. Fits the definition.
  - simonh 4y ago
    The business enterprises of these people are being targeted. If some of those happen to be publishing businesses, they are included, but publishing businesses or opinion sites etc are not being singled out. It’s not the content of these sites (those that are content sites) that’s the issue, it’s the business beneficial ownership. It’s their finances that are the target, not their speech. Publishing businesses are still businesses and subject to the law. If they want to exercise their speech rights in other legal ways, they are free to do so.
  - dgfitz 4y ago
    I agree with simonh on this one. Ideas aren’t being censored. Political parties aren’t being censored. I do not agree with saying “because government” makes it political. That’s like saying speeding tickets are political “because government” is involved in the process.

Closing a book shop or newspaper because it was funded by criminals isn’t censorship. That’s hysterical hyperbole. Anyway this isn’t really about reading websites particularly, it’s mainly about accessing commercial internet services like search or commercial sites. It just happens that internet publishers are also businesses so they can be affected too. However there’s nothing in this targets speech and that doesn’t seem to be the intention.

car_analogy 4y ago
But they're not closing the websites - they're preventing people in the UK from accessing them. To work with your analogy - this is like intercepting a shipment of newspapers, and blacking out any ads placed in them by criminals. Regardless of what the ads say - they're criminals, why should they be entitled to say "I'm innocent"? Sorry - why should they be entitled to printing press amplify their voice. They can just scream in their cells - their free speech isn't being curtailed. Who knows, maybe it is too dangerous to let them speak - but at least have the honesty to call it what it is - censorship.
- simonh 4y ago
  It's like banning anyone in the UK ordering things from the Maffia in Italy, and it happens that one of the businesses the Maffia operates is a newspaper, so you're banned from importing it. Being a publisher isn't an end run around the rest of the law.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    > ordering [..] importing [..] So block financial transactions with the sanctioned entities - problem solved. Unless your real intent isn't blocking money, but speech.
    - simonh 4y ago
      These people profit from the operation of these sites, or many of them anyway, that’s what is being targeted. Even in the case of a publishing site advertising revenue due to page impressions is a legitimate target.
native_samples 4y ago
What on earth makes you think "designated individuals" are criminals? They aren't being prosecuted, they haven't been found guilty in any court of law. They've just been blacklisted by some random civil servants and politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. Not much different to the US no fly lists.
- simonh 4y ago
  Honestly that’s a separate issue, I don’t know about the legality of this, I’m just pointing out this is nothing to do with censorship.

dgfitz 4y ago

cen·sorship /ˈsensərSHip/ noun 1.The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. Does this fit that definition? I would argue no it does not but I’m open to be convinced otherwise.

toast0 4y ago
It's suppression or prohibition of etc. And it's because the government (politics) deems it unacceptable. Fits the definition.
- simonh 4y ago
  The business enterprises of these people are being targeted. If some of those happen to be publishing businesses, they are included, but publishing businesses or opinion sites etc are not being singled out. It’s not the content of these sites (those that are content sites) that’s the issue, it’s the business beneficial ownership. It’s their finances that are the target, not their speech. Publishing businesses are still businesses and subject to the law. If they want to exercise their speech rights in other legal ways, they are free to do so.
- dgfitz 4y ago
  I agree with simonh on this one. Ideas aren’t being censored. Political parties aren’t being censored. I do not agree with saying “because government” makes it political. That’s like saying speeding tickets are political “because government” is involved in the process.