2 ms·
That's interesting. However, presumably the consequences of censorship on the censored individual can be equally detrimental whether it is perpetrated by the st
by ftse 18y ago
That's interesting. However, presumably the consequences of censorship on the censored individual can be equally detrimental whether it is perpetrated by the state or an individual/corporate entity?
For example, what happens if a company makes a product with a flaw that is literally killing people. Are they justified in removing a post from their web site forum that points this out? By your argument, in law, the answer is 'yes', but how does a user of product X feel about this?
- Radix 18y agoJust because it is legal and should be legal doesn't mean it isn't morally reprehensible.
- ftse 18y agoI don't follow... it may be legal, but why should it be legal? The Australian government are presumably following their laws.
- bdr 18y agoThat's implicit in ftse's point, which is to raise the question of when censorship is moral.
- Radix 18y agoI'm sorry, it is not clearly implicit to me. I might have been too hung up on whether it should be legal or not. I read his post and think: Yes, it can be legal for the company to censor their own website, and it would not be immoral for it to be legal. But, it would be completely immoral for them to remove a post from their website without fully dealing with the problem.
- alnayyir 18y agoAre they justified in removing a post from their web site forum that points this out? Yes, because it's their property. That said, law doesn't prevent private individuals from setting up a website to warn others, and then googlebombing the name of the company at fault.