Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucis!dalamb From: dalamb@qucis.queensu.CA (David Lamb) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET Summary: There are many forms of coercion, all potentially bad. Message-ID: <989@qusunitg.queensu.CA> Date: 6 Nov 90 22:06:25 GMT References: <1990Oct21.141502.26557@hoss.unl.edu> <1990Oct31.141646.25350@ifi.uio.no> <1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca> Distribution: comp Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Lines: 52 In article Barry Shein writes: > >Let's put it this way, if they're not from the govt or otherwise have >police powers they're probably not properly called "censors". I think >in this case we may very well be talking about state powers. In article <1990Nov02.202330.21517@looking.on.ca> Brad Templeton writes: > >Easy. It isn't censorship. Censorship is one way to control information. >It is the most evil way. It is *not* the only way, and not the only evil >way. > In article Ed Luke writes: >[... A long thread attempting to define censorship deleted ...] > >Ok, ok, who cares what you call it. As an individual I can not afford >to pay for a nationwide (worldwide) net by myself, but I CAN pay a >part of it's operational expenses. Can we agree to put aside discussion of terminology? I think Ed Luke is on the right track, which I'd express as: what matters is the power to control things. If government coercion happens to be ineffective (as it usually is with policing mild violations of the speeding laws), it has little real effect on most of our lives. If a commercial organization has the financial clout to suppress something, it could be more onerous than "government coercion". I don't see why legal financial coercion is a priori "better" or less onerous than the actions of "the evil government". For example, the threat of a lawsuit can be pretty coercive, even to a defendant who's pretty sure of winning, if you can't afford to defend yourself (financially, or in terms of personal time). Having TV show sponsors threaten to cut off sponsorship is pretty coercive, too - and often effective. It's legal, but not necessarily right. There's a hierarchy of methods of coercion: raw force, the law (which many people obey without even thinking about the raw force behind it), financial coercion, social coercion. There's even "verbal coercion": for example, applying seemingly reasonable arguments to talk someone with less verbal skill into doing what you want, without attempting to understand what they want and reach consensus. Each form of coercion is usually "less bad" than the one before, and perhaps easier to resist, but can still be unfair and evil. David Alex Lamb ARPA Internet: dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca Department of Computing David.Lamb@cs.cmu.edu and Information Science uucp: ...!utzoo!utcsri!qucis!dalamb Queen's University phone: (613) 545-6067 Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6