Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!snorkelwacker!spdcc!xylogics!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: What constitutes abuse ... Message-ID: <1989Dec30.015625.10114@world.std.com> Date: 30 Dec 89 01:56:25 GMT References: <7312@ficc.uu.net> <3507@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> <45062@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1989Dec27.050047.2113@world.std.com> <50134@bbn.COM> Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 118 In-Reply-To: cosell@bbn.com's message of 28 Dec 89 07:20:59 GMT From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (Me) >}Specifically, moderating a group is not censorship, it's not possible >}to "censor" someone by simply eliding their message. >I think that rather than putting "censor" in quotes.. No, I put it in quotes correctly, in the sense it was used in that sentence I was illustrating a use of it that I believe is wholly incorrect, the word was being used there merely illustratively, not for its meaning. For the same reason I might write ``Johnny, you can't "write" a wrong, you "right" a wrong''. Thus, ``it's not possible to "censor"''... I object to the use of the word but mimic the usage in quotes for illustrative reasons, ``it's not possible to censor [sic]...'' might have been a better construction perhaps, I think either is fine. In the particular case I am quoting the misusers, so quotes has some rationale, no? They're not just for escaping strings. >Editors editing for content, style, etc are fine --- that's their job, >mostly; editors editing for political correctness cross the line into >being lowercase-c-censors. I think the fact that you even have to introduce this "lowercase-c" (there, I did it again) terminology into your argument makes it suspect. Did you just make this distinction up (uppercase-C vs lowercase-c censorship) or does it derive from some common usage somewhere? Or maybe you thought I was making this distinction (I certainly wasn't, my whole point is that there is no such distinction.) An editor who edits for "political correctness" does not cross the line into being a "lowercase-c-censor" or any other kind of censor. Censorship is something the state does. Editors merely edit, correctly, fairly or otherwise. Do you think the editors of the National Review or Reason or The New Republic etc don't edit for "political correctness"? Of course they do, it's their job. Those publications have a point of view as their primary reason for existence. They can't publish everything, and they can certainly say "this article belongs in that other point-of-view's magazine" and toss it in the can without being a "censor" (shift-lock or otherwise.) >Editorializing is when they do it to *their* words; it is >lowercase-c-censorship when they do it to *yours*. No, tossing an article in the can is editing, I'm not sure that was a good use (by either of us) of "editorializing" (did it again), but that's neither here nor there, I think we both knew what we meant. >This is just wrong analysis. By your reasoning, to be denied ALL >forums except for a 20watt daytime only AM station in Fargo, ND is not >being censored. That's reductio ad absurdum. If some force could, with coordination, deny you access to the media as described they would be the state and you would indeed have been censored. Show me any way within rational bounds that such a thing could happen without it either coming from the state or someone acting as the state for all intents and purposes. However, it's quite possible that an idea is so off-the-wall or badly stated or trite that one might only find audience on that 20watt station. I don't think that's exactly censorship in any sense of the word, even yours. That's just marketing. And, in fact, if that one 20watt station did air your views (and nothing bad happened to you) then you weren't censored. It would be nice to be on network news, but some views only merit such stations. I really don't want to hear about funny going-ons in the Fargo, ND grange association elections on network news, thank you. The key here is coordinated effort, and that can in general only be done by the state and its police powers or some other entity you would accuse of acting as the state. For example, if the contras in Nicaragua executed someone for their anti-Contra writings I'd have to say the Contras were acting as the state having tried, convicted and executed a person, even if they weren't officially recognized as the state. But that's an extreme case and I don't think you can extend that to US newspaper editors (editors in some countries of course act in coordination with the state and censor, they *are* the state and are carrying out the police authority of the state, that's a whole other issue.) Acting as the state when you're not authorized is easy to recognize, it's a criminal offense (censoring, executing, jailing, taxing, etc.) Anything else is merely metaphor. I am honestly enjoying this because I think it's a great example of confusing a metaphor with reality, that's the whole problem here! Censorship as a metaphor for "editing we don't agree with" vs. censorship, the word, meaning "making the publication of a certain view a criminal offense". I think you've lept right into my whole point. Metaphor vs. reality and how confusing the two can damage reality (i.e. people can be fooled into using the anger they have developed for the reality over an instance of the metaphor, they can believe an unreasonable editor is "censoring" them and start a holy war.) >But again, you're partly right --- we should remember that this is >"just usenet", and we're not talking about real capital-C-censorship. >But that doesn't make lowercase-c-censorship any the more palatable [or >welcome]. No, I'm completely right. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs