From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Censorship definition again (was Re: [alt.feminism] Feminist...)
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 12:59:29 EST

In article <1992Dec15.165056.19332@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>
>Just to add fuel to the fire: If there is going to be censorship (there is,
>isn't there?), how do we find the edges?  Where are the limits?
>
>Shouting:  "FUCK EVERYONE!!  KILL THE CHILDREN!" in the streets, 24 hours a
>day.
>
>Writing a song with the lyrics "Mommies aren't nice."
>
>Both can be considered offensive.  Do we allow ANYTHING, live sex on the
>sidewalk in front of your house (Hey, that might not be so bad...), do we
>allow nothing, a cop on the sidewalk in front of your house, or do we set
>flexible limits that can be changed by a good fight?  I've heard Ice-T give
>some good defense, maybe he's right.  If you are willing to debate in
>public about it, then it can become acceptable ( a ban or a song).  What I
>don't like is backroom decisions, pandering to small loud groups, and Anita
>Bryant setting rules for the rest of us, who are a little less
>lilly-white.

I'm sure I'll draw a lot of responses from people who disagree (and are
wrong! :), but your basic premise is mistaken.  The term "censorship" is
not properly used as a subjective term.

As far as I'm concerned "censorship" can reasonably be defined only as an
objective term.

It can be used in a very stricty technical sense--whereby *any* decision
that something is not acceptable, publishable, legal, or whatever is
"censorship" regardless of *what* the reason is.

It can also be used in a more common manner, whereby a decision that
something is not acceptable, publishable, legal, or whatever is "censorship"
depending upon the intent of the decision-maker or, alternatively, upon
the effect of the decision.  (For example, it is common to consider an
action to be censorship, if the intent of the action was to suppress
information.)

Note that the second definition *is* objective.  However, since mere mortals
are not omniscient, we can't always *know* objectively whether or not an
act constituted "censorship" under the second definition.  (So there may be
a *subjective* debate over whether an action meets the *objective* standard.)


What is, in my view, wholly unworkable as a use for "censorship" is as a
subjective term that essentially means "an act of suppression that I
disagree with."  It is unworkable primarily because it is too damn
subjective for any two humans to agree upon.

Unfortunately, a lot of people try to use this (generally in the form of
"This is not censorship, because this is a *good* thing!"), because *nobody*
wants to support "censorship."

The fact of the matter, however, is that most (but not all) of us see some
forms of "censorship" as "good," and some as "bad."  (For example, a lot
of people believe that censorial laws prohibiting one from falsely shouting
"Fire!" in a crowded theatre are good.)


We'd be a lot better off if people stopped pretending, and just admitted
what they actually support.  Even the military does this, when it comes
to censorship!  When the military uses "censorship," I've never heard them
claim that it isn't "censorship."  They just claim that it is "justified
censorship."  (By my use, "good = justified" and "bad = unjustified.")

But to my eye, it is important that we not play games.  Admit when you support
a form of censorship, and factor out your subjective feelings of "good"
and "bad" (or "justified" and "unjustified") as an explicit modifier of
the term "censorship."


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: ia.newsgroups,ia.talk.politics,isu.cc.general,isu.cc.vincent,isu.newsgroups,isu.talk.misc,isu.talk.computer-fee,isu.talk.politics,alt.censorship,isu.talk.usenet-policy