3 ms·

False. When Trey Parker and Matt Stone wished to show Muhammad in South Park Comedy Central overruled them and placed a big black censored box over Muhammad in

False. When Trey Parker and Matt Stone wished to show Muhammad in South Park Comedy Central overruled them and placed a big black censored box over Muhammad in the cartoon. If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're retarded. You are ever correct that GitHub can ban the word if they want. They're fully within their legal right to do so.

thedz 11y ago
I think where the confusion comes from is that along with many cries of "censorship", there is often a subtext of "this is illegal" or "this is not allowed".
- Snesker 11y ago
  I've seen that used as a straw-man in this thread over 10 times so far and not a single person who thought what github did was illegal. I'm forced wonder if insane overreactions of the people who think free speech only means the American law are part of some social conditioning project to destroy non-progressive principles. I shouldn't have to. For all the back-patting the users on HN gives themselves they sure are dumb as bricks. Also, with the notion that the subtext of it being illegal being present - I've never seen it once. In the 23 years I've been alive I've never once seen someone say corporate censorship was illegal. Heh. I'm angrier than this text reads, breh.
eastbayjake 11y ago
> If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're regarded. This is a definition of censorship that removes any useful descriptive meaning from the word. It's not censorship when I refuse to listen to offensive things or refuse to repeat them to others or allow you to graffiti it on the side of my house. Similarly, it's not censorship when a private company declines to let you use its private resources to say whatever you want. The difference between these types of "censorship" and scary, actual government censorship is that GitHub doesn't have the authority to hold a gun to your head and compel you to be quiet. You can take your repo and host it privately and say whatever you want. Comedy Central didn't have the authority to compel Trey Parker and Matt Stone to be quiet. Parker and Stone could have terminated their contracts and posted a Mohammed cartoon through some other channel. You rob censorship of its depth of meaning -- compulsory silencing by force -- when you apply it to private actors choosing not to use their private resources to promote others' speech.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  I could not possibly disagree with you any more strongly. I'm far from alone in my opinion. I may even be on the majority side. That doesn't make me right of course. But it is worth your consideration. I could defend my stance. I think you're probably smart and probably know almost everything I'd say. If that's the case then we're resigned to agree to disagree.

thedz 11y ago

I think where the confusion comes from is that along with many cries of "censorship", there is often a subtext of "this is illegal" or "this is not allowed".

Snesker 11y ago
I've seen that used as a straw-man in this thread over 10 times so far and not a single person who thought what github did was illegal. I'm forced wonder if insane overreactions of the people who think free speech only means the American law are part of some social conditioning project to destroy non-progressive principles. I shouldn't have to. For all the back-patting the users on HN gives themselves they sure are dumb as bricks. Also, with the notion that the subtext of it being illegal being present - I've never seen it once. In the 23 years I've been alive I've never once seen someone say corporate censorship was illegal. Heh. I'm angrier than this text reads, breh.

eastbayjake 11y ago

> If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're regarded. This is a definition of censorship that removes any useful descriptive meaning from the word. It's not censorship when I refuse to listen to offensive things or refuse to repeat them to others or allow you to graffiti it on the side of my house. Similarly, it's not censorship when a private company declines to let you use its private resources to say whatever you want. The difference between these types of "censorship" and scary, actual government censorship is that GitHub doesn't have the authority to hold a gun to your head and compel you to be quiet. You can take your repo and host it privately and say whatever you want. Comedy Central didn't have the authority to compel Trey Parker and Matt Stone to be quiet. Parker and Stone could have terminated their contracts and posted a Mohammed cartoon through some other channel. You rob censorship of its depth of meaning -- compulsory silencing by force -- when you apply it to private actors choosing not to use their private resources to promote others' speech.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
I could not possibly disagree with you any more strongly. I'm far from alone in my opinion. I may even be on the majority side. That doesn't make me right of course. But it is worth your consideration. I could defend my stance. I think you're probably smart and probably know almost everything I'd say. If that's the case then we're resigned to agree to disagree.