3 ms·

OK, so no censorship ever? No treason for telling an enemy secrets in war? Where do you draw a line and why?

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• orwin 3y ago
  > OK, so no censorship ever? No treason for telling an enemy secrets in war? Those two aren't equivalent. And just because you cannot make a law to prevent someone to speak, you can punish him afterward, with prison or fines. Diffamation, hate speech, inciting violence, treason are all examples. I do not hold private companies to the same standards.
  • RandomLensman 3y ago
    Wartime censorship is a thing.
    • orwin 3y ago
      _was_ a thing. I'm not sure it was a great idea either. Look at how Ukrainian civilians manifested against a corrupt mayor who tried to use money/production to cater to voters instead of supporting soldiers? This would never have happened in France or in UK during WW1, mostly because news from the front were always "good". Despite being a _lot_ of corruption case and of rerouted production. Wartime censorship actually was a huge burden on French soldiers, especially French-speaking one, because they couldn't really explain the war to their families (it was easier on my family because they did not speak French but Breton, and censorship let more information pass through, even though it was written... extremely phonetically.). According from "all is well on the western front", it was the same on the German side. The soldiers _HATED_ civilian, because of wartime censorship, and oftentime whished for civilian to be bombed and understand, even sightly, their own suffering.
      • RandomLensman 3y ago
        The last time the US was at war was WWII - tough to say if "was" is correct in that sense. Also, not sure the censorship then is widely considered as detrimental.
        • rightbyte 3y ago
          De jure, ye.