3 ms·
The definition of censor is "to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society
by rrmm 11y ago
The definition of censor is "to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.", right?
Github is censoring content on their site according to their TOS. They have a right to.
It's not a First Amendment issue. It's still probably worth considering if it's a good thing. Especially, if you plan to host a project that has content that might be objectionable to someone.
- Panino 11y agoThe definition you gave appears to be from Merriam Webster [0]. This is a good starting point, but it's crucial to note that the word "censorship" predates the modern web, with publicly read-write websites. So the word publish [1] has been radically altered as well. As for publishing, have a look at the MW examples: they all cite books or magazines. That's an old conception of publishing that clearly needs to be updated. And censorship is intimately tied to that definition. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/publish
- rrmm 11y agoIs your objection here based on just the denotation of the word? What's your preferred definition? Are you coming at it from a legal definition (e.g. Black's) or other specific context? I think the word broadly works in this situation although certainly the leap in context it suggests (from private legal act to illegal governmental action) is unwarranted.