4 ms·
The issue I have with this article is it’s trying to change the definition of censorship. Not allowing profanity is censorship even if most of the public is ok
by ryanschaefer 3y ago
The issue I have with this article is it’s trying to change the definition of censorship.
Not allowing profanity is censorship even if most of the public is okay with this.
One can argue that there is a good reason for censorship but you have to call it what it is rather than trying to redefine the act itself.
- dundarious 3y agoThe broad public support is why your definition of censorship and the article's are incompatible, why it behooves you to explain the difference, and why it's lazy to invoke Orwell and complain about definitions without explanation. I agree the FCC is all about censorship, but word games and snark is such a lazy and ineffective way to debate.