censorship

is this suitable thread to discuss the words that can and can't be used on ILX?

(sincerely asked, not snarkily)

http://skreened.com/product-image/w160h210f3z101/euvaveytlyyyrnvkdnzt/hillary-clinton-for-president-in-2012-hillary-clinton-2008-because-you-call-her-a-bitch-shirt.png

http://i.my.afterdawn.com/standard/1676.jpg

?

darraghmac, in my opinion, no, because "censorship" is something only governments can do. your beef is with some rules, not censorship.

Political correctness gone mad!

What words cannot be used on ILX?

[nabisco] [.]

Why is this about what words you can't use, instead of "disapproval of posts that demonstrate you might be a dick about a certain social/racial/whatever group, no matter what words are used"?

LOOOOL

(@ max's post)

fuck the whatevers

DUMPLINGS!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24519179

What words was i wondering about i wonder

"censorship" is something only governments can do

not true. not even close.

how so

is there some other force that writes laws that I'm unaware of

Censorship is a concept, not a law. Any institution or community can practise censorship within its membership and to the extent of its power. Censorship happens at every level, including families and individuals, states, churchs and other institutions.

To give several well-known examples, the catholic church issues a list of proscribed books that its members are forbidden to read without special dispensation. You may recall (or not) the protracted struggles between the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and the CBS censors. If you don't think FOX news is carefully censored, then you are misguided. There are a ton of books censored out of school librariies, and oftentimes My Two Moms and Huck Finn are among them.

Nor is government censorship meaningful outside the confines of the country it governs. If Putin censors a news story he finds offensive, the chances are good I can read about it in the NY Times.

Enough explantion now?

sure (altho school libraries are gov't institutions, ftr)

non-govt instances of censorship seem largely inconsequential to me tho, in that they do not actually prevent the circulation/dissemination of works/words/ideas/etc beyond their limited sphere of influence. For ex. if Parker/Stone really had issues with South Park being censored by Comedy Central, they could take their schtick to some other network.

along similar lines if you want to work in network television you are sort of de facto implicit in getting your work censored because market forces have decreed that certain things are not acceptable on mainstream television (and in some cases, gov't forces like the FCC have decreed it too, ie nipplegate)

Seems to me that if Parker/Stone had to take their schtick to another network that this would count as consequential from their pov. And, as I pointed out, every censoring entity is limited in its power to censor. Some have more power than others, but none have universal power. This doesn't stop them from doing everything within their power to censor.

the gov't is the only one that doesn't require your explicit consent tho. I mean, if you don't want to be censored by the Catholic Church maybe just don't listen to them? they have no power of enforcement.

that's an important distinction, but it is not a distinction that separates censorship on one side from not-censorship on the other.

btw, if you think the catholic church has no power of enforcement, you've never heard of excommunication.

I find the church mostly lol tbh, they haven't been much of a threat to non-catholics for many decades at this point

when was the last time they excommunicated someone for reading forbidden texts? do they even excommunicate anybody anymore? pederasts?

do they even excommunicate anybody anymore?

yes. if you think they'd give up that leverage over communicants, you are mistaken. and again, just because the church can't effectively censor non-catholics doesn't mean what they do is not a form of censorship. which, if you scroll back up, was my point, which you asked me to clarify.

is it really censorship if it requires your consent

is my point

consent sounds so nice and agreeable. but when there is a noteworthy imbalance of power between the parties making the agreement, then the consent of the less powerful party does not exactly mean it had much effective choice. read the agreement you freely consented to with your credit card company for example. i am sure there are provisions in there you find quite distasteful. just be glad they didn't add in that they would block purchases of particular items they disapprove of, because, hey, consent!

I don't think the catholic church or a network tv station are like a credit card company

very astute

well your analogy assumes the balance of power is slanted towards the censoring authority, which I don't think at all is true in the case of the church or a network. the church only has the power you give it. the network only has the power of its market behind it, and if (to bring in a previous example) if you're Parker/Stone you're negotiating from a pretty powerful position - they could just say fuck you "Comedy Central" and take it to HBO or some other platform

xp
I don't think all forms of consent are alike or that force only consists of imprisonment.

your analogy assumes the balance of power is slanted towards the censoring authority

arguing with me over whether Comedy Central can censor as effectively as, say, North Korea can is not an argument I intend to have, because obv some censorships are less effective or coercive than others. But...

"censorship" is something only governments can do

not true. not even close.
― Aimless

how so
― Ayn Rand Akbar (Shakey Mo Collier)

is there some other force that writes laws that I'm unaware of
― Ayn Rand Akbar (Shakey Mo Collier)

your ongoing acceptance of the term censorship in the context of non-governmental institutions, corporations or churches more or less proves that you accept my point, which is that not only governments can censor, but other entities, too.

those other forms of censorship sort of don't matter, since they aren't effective

but whatever semantics etc

like those other institutions can try, but they can't really do it

gov'ts on the other hand

shakey are you really arguing that non-government entities aren't effective at censorship

So, can we agree that censorship by any entity other than a government isn't really censorship, except that we don't have any term that can describe what this is, other than the term "censorship", so we may continue to use that term, with the understanding that it doesn't actually denote censorship, but only "censorship"?

hey I didn't make up this stupid language

the operative/critical word in J0hn's post is "can", not "censorship"

then you're saying it depends on what the meaning of "can" is?

iirc it means

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/anna_kournikova-butt.jpg