Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!agate!muffy From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Cable Censorship Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 91 08:03:14 GMT References: <2153@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> <1991Jun26.235525.2474@athena.cs.uga.edu> <1991Jun28.002632.27854@neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: Natural Language Incorporated Lines: 50 In-Reply-To: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu's message of Fri, 28 Jun 1991 00: 26:32 GMT In article <1991Jun28.002632.27854@neon.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes: In article muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >An outside authority *is* imposing a restriction. The cable company is >restricting what the viewers can see (see my point about no alternate >providers). By your definition, every information provider is a censor, since they select how best to use their (limited) bandwidth. Read the thread. This is *not* my definition, it was Michael Covington's definition. My definition (or, at least, the one I grabbed out of the dictionary, which is kind of close to mine) is the restriction of material due to its "immorality," etc. That means that if I run a library and I can't carry every book, it is not censorship. However, if I say, well, I *could* carry this book, but I think it's immoral, so I won't, then that *is* censorship. I don't understand why people can't understand what censorship is. It is not only the restricting of views you agree with (and therefore think ought to be expressed). It is *any* restrictions. Although I wasn't there at the time, I have always had the impression that "freedom of speech" was meant to include *all* views, not just the ones that "society" approved of. Have you ever noticed, by the way, that society's standards change? And how is that change effected? Amazingly enough, it often comes about because people do things which are not approved of by society. I am not saying that it is illegal (or "immoral") for a company to restrict the information that it provides. However, just because it is "legal" and "business" does not mean it is not "censorship." Not all lack of information is censorship CATV (which stands for Community Access TeleVision, commonly distorted to CAble TV) is just that; and by the existing laws and interpretations of the First Amendment, are subject to Community Standards. So frankly, if you don't like the communtity resource, go buy a dish -- it's cheaper in the long run, and you have access to anything you can pay for. I hardly even watch TV, so why would I want a dish? Frankly, you're making several unwarranted assumptions. By the way, whose "Community Standards" are we talking about here? The original poster said that none of the subscribers were asked about the change - so, that's hardly listening to the "community," eh? (By the way, the newest information indicates that all the company is doing is charging for MTV instead of offering it free. If that is the case, it is not censorship, although it may be undesirable from the point of view of the customers.) Muffy