From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:21:13 GMT


In article <lk6up0INN5q5@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, 
williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) said:

> > [To boycott] is not to censor.  To censor is to use force or
> > threat of force to either prevent a person from speaking or to
> > prevent a potential audience member from hearing that person
> > speak.  [wdstarr]
>
> So when a network censor refuses to show something that is too
> explicit, he is threatening force?  When the government takes away
> the liquor license of an establishment that shows erotic dancing,
> that is use of force?  Your definition is faulty.  No use of force
> is required for censorship.

These are two separate questions... (1) When a network censor acts, he
is acting in his capacity as an agent of the owners of the network.
Since they own the network, they can legitimately control what is and
is not disseminated over the network.  This is not censorship; this is
the exercise of a property right.  The network owner, through his
agent, isn't preventing anyone from speaking, and he isn't preventing
anyone from listening.  He's merely refraining from providing his
privately owned resources as a forum.

(2) When the government takes away a liquor license of an
establishment that shows erotic dancing, it _is_ committing censorship
under the definition that I gave -- "to use force _or the threat of
force_."  [Emphasis added.]  All parties to this action -- the
government, the owner of the liquor establishment and the public --
know damn well that if the owner tries to defy the government by
continuing to serve liquor and feature erotic dancing, the government
can and will use force -- the police -- to enforce the government's
will and shut down the establishment and probably take away some of
the owner's property and/or freedom as punishment.

> > I've seen the statement "Only governments can censor" bandied
> > about in these threads; I think that's generally but not
> > absolutely true.
>
> Huh?  I would have to disagree.  If I refuse to print something in
> my newspaper or magazine -- that is censorship.  The government
> doesn't do alot of censorship in our society (its unconstitutional)
> -- most censorship is done by private organizations where it is
> legal and it requires no force or threat there-of.

See my statement (1), above... if it's your newspaper or magazine,
your editorial decisions as to what goes into or stays out of it are
not censorship because all you're doing is refraining from providing
someone else with a soapbox.  You _aren't_ preventing someone else
from printing whatever he wants in _his_ newspaper or magazine.

On the other hand, if you refuse to print something in your newspaper
or magazine not because you don't want to but because you're afraid of
what the government (backed up by force) will or might do to you if
you do print the offending item, then it _is_ censorship -- you're
being censored by the government.  And I disagree with your assessment
of the situation -- as I see it, the government _does_ do a lot of
this in our society, and the Supreme Court has in various cases held
that it is _not_ unconstitutional.  (Note: I'm not agreeing with the
Supreme Court here; I'm just reporting on what they've ruled.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.censorship