5 ms·
The problem is censorship. Say something the powerful disagree with and it will be judged offensive. You should be able to publish Animal Farm or the Communis
by ARandomerDude 4y ago
The problem is censorship. Say something the powerful disagree with and it will be judged offensive.
You should be able to publish Animal Farm or the Communist Manifesto without being "edited" until your book simply affirms the status quo.
- dingusdew 4y ago[dead]
- lostlogin 4y ago> You should be able to publish Animal Farm or the Communist Manifesto without being "edited" until your book simply affirms the status quo. You can.
- Zetice 4y agoWho is censoring in this case?
- cld8483 4y ago[flagged]
- Zetice 4y agoSo the content owners? So you're saying if I buy something I shouldn't be allowed to make changes?
- cld8483 4y ago[flagged]
- Zetice 4y agoWhy are we talking about legality? Do you believe that ownership is categorically a legal concept? And wouldn't it be censorship to prevent me from publishing a clean version of Huck Finn? If his uncensored story exists, and my publishing of an alternative version in no way removes those works from circulation, there's not really an argument in place that I'm censoring anything.
- cld8483 4y agoThe author is dead, any "ownership" of the work today is purely a legal concept. But ownership in any sense irrelevant. Being the owner of a work does not preclude censorship. If the author himself censors his work, as Roald Dahl did do, that is still censorship.
- Zetice 4y agoSo let me get this straight; the concept of transferral of ownership is, according to you, purely a legal concept. Absent laws, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to take your things if someone else made them for you? And it would be morally wrong to make changes to something once I own it, if I wasn't the originator of the thing?
- ars 4y ago> Absent laws, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to take your things if someone else made them for you? Regarding intellectual property? Yes, that would be perfectly fine. That's an entirely law based creation, not a moral one. > And it would be morally wrong to make changes to something once I own it, if I wasn't the originator of the thing? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors%27_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors%27_rights
- ars 4y agoYou are. You are censoring your own mind to the point that you seem unable to understand others. You should expose yourself to ideas that you don't like.