3 ms·

If I configure my home router to use OpenDNS, such that my children cannot access internet pornography or extremist forums (such as 4chan or 8chan for example),

by Crito 12y ago

If I configure my home router to use OpenDNS, such that my children cannot access internet pornography or extremist forums (such as 4chan or 8chan for example), that is a form of censorship, yes? It is a form of censorship that the government is not involved in. It is legal, and it is well within my rights to do. Hell, I'd go so far as to say it is the appropriate thing to do. It's still censorship though. I don't know what else I'd call it. Alternatively, when an American cable news channel bleeps profanity or blurs nudity, isn't that a form of censorship? I'm really confused with where the "censorship is only something a government can do" idea came from. Some sort of conflation between the ideas of "censorship" and "violation of first amendment rights" I suppose.

current_call 12y ago
Part of it is people confusing legal and ethical. Oh my god, shut up about free speech. It's his privately owned website and he can do whatever he wants with it.
wpietri 12y ago
I gave a government example, as that's what we were talking about. Censorship just requires power, and government power is the most important and obvious kind because governments are monopolies over large numbers of people. But yes, you also, having power over your kids, can censor what they see. But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association. If the 8chan guy tomorrow decided to shut down and nobody else wanted to host the pedophiles, that isn't censorship. They can buy a piece of land and make a pedophile clubhouse. They can buy a printer, make pedophilia leaflets, and distribute them in the town square. But if nobody wants to help them do that, it isn't censorship, because nobody is exercising power over the pedophiles, just over themselves.
- current_call 12y ago
  But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association. No, that is censorship. transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
  - wpietri 12y ago
    That's a ridiculous interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard.
    - current_call 12y ago
      That's a ridiculous interpretation. It's the correct interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True. Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard. True. These are all true, but irrelevant. Refusing to help spread a message is different than trying to stop other people help spread a message. I've been repeating this for a while now. If you're still confused, try rereading our discussion until you see the difference.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        Ah yes, the only possible reason somebody could disagree is failure to understand your perfect words. If my neighbor puts up your signs, I am allowed to express my opinions to him. If he decides to take down the signs, that is still not censorship. I'm even allowed to decide to not talk to him if he leaves them up. Exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of association is not censorship. It can't be, because otherwise the right to free speech ends up being self-contradictory.
        current_call 12y ago

by Crito 12y ago

current_call 12y ago

Part of it is people confusing legal and ethical. Oh my god, shut up about free speech. It's his privately owned website and he can do whatever he wants with it.

wpietri 12y ago

I gave a government example, as that's what we were talking about. Censorship just requires power, and government power is the most important and obvious kind because governments are monopolies over large numbers of people. But yes, you also, having power over your kids, can censor what they see. But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association. If the 8chan guy tomorrow decided to shut down and nobody else wanted to host the pedophiles, that isn't censorship. They can buy a piece of land and make a pedophile clubhouse. They can buy a printer, make pedophilia leaflets, and distribute them in the town square. But if nobody wants to help them do that, it isn't censorship, because nobody is exercising power over the pedophiles, just over themselves.

current_call 12y ago
But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association. No, that is censorship. transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
- wpietri 12y ago
  That's a ridiculous interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard.
  - current_call 12y ago
    That's a ridiculous interpretation. It's the correct interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True. Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard. True. These are all true, but irrelevant. Refusing to help spread a message is different than trying to stop other people help spread a message. I've been repeating this for a while now. If you're still confused, try rereading our discussion until you see the difference.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      Ah yes, the only possible reason somebody could disagree is failure to understand your perfect words. If my neighbor puts up your signs, I am allowed to express my opinions to him. If he decides to take down the signs, that is still not censorship. I'm even allowed to decide to not talk to him if he leaves them up. Exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of association is not censorship. It can't be, because otherwise the right to free speech ends up being self-contradictory.
      - current_call 12y ago