3 ms·

> Only governments can censor. Bit of a side issue, but that's an interesting statement, I've never heard that before. A quick google doesn't seem to back that

> Only governments can censor. Bit of a side issue, but that's an interesting statement, I've never heard that before. A quick google doesn't seem to back that up, so I wonder what I'm missing, or why you said that?

munchbunny 13y ago
I think that's in the legal context: the US government is bound to the 1st Amendment, which has usually been interpreted broadly to apply to (almost) everything the government does. So when the US government does the censoring, it's often questionably legal. However, private organizations aren't usually bound by the same rules, so there's no law against a private organization doing the same thing. I suppose we can call it "censoring" in both cases, but usually only one of the cases is an actual violation of the law.
arjie 13y ago
When Americans use the word 'censorship' they seem to explicitly refer to censorship in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. By the general meaning of the word, of course anyone can censor anyone else but in America it is meant to be "censorship that violates the First Amendment". I'm not American. It's just the best explanation I can come up with why this view is so common.
- markburns 13y ago
  Thanks, yeah that satisfies my curiosity and seems like a reasonable explanation.
jedberg 13y ago
arjie covered it well. I accidentally put on my Amero-centric hat, where censorship by the government is illegal, whereas by private organizations it is not.
adventured 13y ago
He's correct that only governments can censor. On a forum like HN freedom of speech does not apply, because you don't have a right to post here. The first amendment only applies to the government, as it relates to your property, public property, or other private property that you've been granted the right to express through (eg the NY Times). You don't have a right, for example, to walk into your neighbor's house and exclaim your position on communism. For another private party to stop you from exercising your freedom of speech, eg in your yard / on your property, they'd have to initiate violence, and properly that is already illegal. It's the government's job to protect you from that force, and by doing so would be upholding your right to free speech (if they fail to do so, they're not protecting your rights, and that can be government censorship by proxy). And in regards to private context, it also is dependent on what you've agreed to, such as in signing a contract. If you join a community, whether Hacker News or a housing development, and have agreed that you may not fly a flag in your front yard or use verbal abuse (on a forum), then that's a choice you've voluntarily signed on to.
- twobits 13y ago
  "you don't have a right to post here" But you may not be able to avoid it. If a forum is the popular forum, you either post, or never be heard. You have to post there to get heard. So the "private company" can choose what is heard or not. That is censorship. Not illegal, as many said, but censorship. With all the bad results.

munchbunny 13y ago

I think that's in the legal context: the US government is bound to the 1st Amendment, which has usually been interpreted broadly to apply to (almost) everything the government does. So when the US government does the censoring, it's often questionably legal. However, private organizations aren't usually bound by the same rules, so there's no law against a private organization doing the same thing. I suppose we can call it "censoring" in both cases, but usually only one of the cases is an actual violation of the law.

arjie 13y ago

When Americans use the word 'censorship' they seem to explicitly refer to censorship in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. By the general meaning of the word, of course anyone can censor anyone else but in America it is meant to be "censorship that violates the First Amendment". I'm not American. It's just the best explanation I can come up with why this view is so common.

markburns 13y ago
Thanks, yeah that satisfies my curiosity and seems like a reasonable explanation.

jedberg 13y ago

arjie covered it well. I accidentally put on my Amero-centric hat, where censorship by the government is illegal, whereas by private organizations it is not.

adventured 13y ago

He's correct that only governments can censor. On a forum like HN freedom of speech does not apply, because you don't have a right to post here. The first amendment only applies to the government, as it relates to your property, public property, or other private property that you've been granted the right to express through (eg the NY Times). You don't have a right, for example, to walk into your neighbor's house and exclaim your position on communism. For another private party to stop you from exercising your freedom of speech, eg in your yard / on your property, they'd have to initiate violence, and properly that is already illegal. It's the government's job to protect you from that force, and by doing so would be upholding your right to free speech (if they fail to do so, they're not protecting your rights, and that can be government censorship by proxy). And in regards to private context, it also is dependent on what you've agreed to, such as in signing a contract. If you join a community, whether Hacker News or a housing development, and have agreed that you may not fly a flag in your front yard or use verbal abuse (on a forum), then that's a choice you've voluntarily signed on to.

twobits 13y ago
"you don't have a right to post here" But you may not be able to avoid it. If a forum is the popular forum, you either post, or never be heard. You have to post there to get heard. So the "private company" can choose what is heard or not. That is censorship. Not illegal, as many said, but censorship. With all the bad results.