But there’s a difference between censorship and having the right to find something in an arena (public vs. private). There’s also the issue of people who think a private entity owes them anything not guaranteed by various governing bodies:)
Absolutely right. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s censorship, it just changes the nature of the censorship.
(My kingdom for a legal dictionary or someone with a working understanding of censorship in the private and/or public sector as concerns law, case history etc. A’course, my kingdom is paltry, and one gets what one pays for.)
The difference is that the SDMB can do it, and you have to take it. But if the Government tells the SDMB to do it, then you have a problem. It’s still the same definition though, IMO.
Haven’t the foggiest idea. I think there’d be two areas to consider, though: first, the censorship of voluntary information such as Playboy, The Anarchist’s Cookbook, Martha Stewart cookbooks, etc. The second would be required information, such as safety information, how to report a suspected violation of some sort, etc. (These terms used are by no means legal jargon:D) I would be unsurprised were I told that some private entity, somewhere in this country, had been found guilty of not properly posting information about ENDA or something.
You’re acting as if the term “censorship” exists only in relation to the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Whether you like it or not, the term has a far broader application than that, and need not necessarily be associated with illegality or government coercion.
As iampunha correctly states, the suppression of certain viewpoints or materials is censorship, and the key issue is in the nature of the censorship and whether or not the censorship is justified. And remember, even this need not be only legal justification; some things are legally justified, but people might still find them morally or ethically unjustified. And vice versa.
Well, feel free to make up your own set of definitions, but don’t be surprised when people continue to use the term correctly, despite your obtuseness.
If i want to say something on the SDMB, and the moderators disallow it, or delete my post, then that’s censorship. It might be perfectly legally justified, and many people would also argue that it’s completely morally justified, but it’s still censorship.
Also, it seems quite clear that the government is allowed to engage in certain sorts of censorship. The FCC regulations about obscenity on television are a clear case of a government entity controlling expression and exercising censorship. So, because the government apparently is allowed to do this, does this mean it’s not censorship according to your definition?
I believe I am dickering over a nuance of the definition, not being obtuse. A lot of people throw around the word “censorship” without being aware of the fact that private entities are allowed to “censor.”
Literally speaking, yes, you are correct. But as I stated above, I wouldn’t use such a loaded word as censorship. I would call it “discretion” or “my house, my rules.”
Well, that’s a whole 'nuther thread, but no, I do not agree with the FCC regulations on obscenity on television. So I would submit that what the FCC does is censorship.
You asserted first that non-governmental agencies could not censor because censorship explicitly involved governmental involvement:
Once definitions were posted asserting that government involvement was not requisite, you then changed your argument around to reflect a more specific form of censorship:
Have you now amended your position on censorship re: your first quoted portion above, or should the quotation marks placed around “censor” indicate a difference sense of the word from what the rest of us are using? Private entities, being other than governmental bodies, are allowed to censor (to the extent permitted by law), are they not? A different issue is one’s “right” to buy/be able to find or obtain porno mags at Wal-mart or wherever:)
Idea is the same, you’re just changing the word. Why not recognize the to-you loaded sense of the word and confront it rather than skirting it? Your meaning is the same, after all.
I happen to agree, based on the generally-agreed-upon definition of censorship;)
I apologize if I am not making myself clear, or if I seem to be changing definitions. I am trying to clarify my position, and I guess I’m not doing a very good job at getting my point across.
Yes, I was using “censor” in quotations to indicate the right of private entities to decide what to sell or publish on their own, to differentiate it from the Constitutional Censorship prohibited by the First Amendment.
My point is that private entites are allowed to “censor,”, whereas the gov’t is not. However, going back to the Wal-mart/Cosmo example, many people scream “Censorship” without realizing that Wal-mart has a perfect right to “censor.”
I recognize your literal definition of censorship. However, I believe there is a larger, Constitutional defintion that many do not understand, namely, while Wal-mart may have a right to “censor,” it is not Censorship.
Again, I may be splitting a hair, and I accept that. But it is an important distinction to me.
Thank you for helping me put my thoughts in order, (if indeed, they are, or if I have just confused my stance more. :))
I think you’re separating as two issues (and I mean no insult by saying this) what others see as one: you see censorship as being of two sorts; the one, by the government; the other by private entities. It’s an important distinction in that Wal-mart is perfectly free to eliminate “risqué” material from its stock, whereas the government is not (to my knowledge) allowed to blanketly tell a store that it may not sell Hustler. Censorship is something I any others see as being done by any number of entities, public or private; the distinction is perhaps in the legitimacy/foundation of the act.
Exactly, iampuhna. As I said earlier, I think we’re coming to the same conclusion from different directions. I just prefer not to use Censorship to describe what Wal-mart does, since to me, that’s the Constitutional definition.
I have no problem with Wal-mart deciding not to sell Hustler. I have problem with the gov’t telling Wal-mart telling them they can’t.
Maybe I’m making a distinction where none exists. I have Censorship tied up in my mind with the First Amendment and gov’t interference, and I prefer not to use it to describe what Sirius did.
So, in conclusion and using your expanded definitions, IMO, while Sirius may have censored, they did not Censor.
LifeOnWry…I’m not pestering anybody, Please
I received a Sirius Radio Receiver for Xmas and face a small dilema. I don’t like
they’re programming. Because of this, I’m not going to shell out the cost for a
docking Station and monthly subscription fees. Besides, I am exceedingly happy
with my free Webradio Station. Today, my above post was almost immediately
taken off their message board and moved to another Topic without showing it
had been moved.
So let us get this straight- now you are saying that they didn’t even delete your post? Just moved it?
Dude you must be pretty bored or something to go on one website to complain about your christmas present and then come to another message board to complain about how they treated your complaint. How about you grow the fuck up?
I think we can agree on that:) You’re (this is meant to be amusing; how it comes out may well not reflect that) merely pasting the C from the Constitution to -ensorship to reflect the foundation of the charge.
(We now return you from the land of pedantry and hijacks.)
But wait, there’s more. He made the post at a place called Sirius Backstage (cite). Sirius Backstage is a fan site and is not affiliated with Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.
Mr. Roboto, I think you have to seriously consider the possibility that you are too stupid to listen to the radio.
My wife has Sirius radio (she got a lifetime subscription when she bought her car, but we enjoy it so much I would gladly pay for it). I don’t listen to much 60s music, but I remembered flipping past a station on my random browsing. '60s Vibration seems to be the one I’m remembering, although they have some others which cover the same approximate ground: Classic Vinyl and The Vault appear to hit the Bob Dylan/Beatles/Jimi Hendrix/Grateful Dead/Jefferson Airplane/Doors thing pretty hard as well.
Even if this rant weren’t a train wreck, feeling disappointed because there are only 3 stations that play your narrow genre of interest seems a little unreasonable. In 60 or 70 channels of music, spanning all genres over a few hundred years, I think 3 partial channels is pretty good representation for a 5 year period of pop music.
Yes, Sirius has some gaps – I would like a better variety of hip-hop (4), world (2), and classical (3) music channels. But there is so much more there than anything I could find on regular AM and FM combined. For me, I have 5 stations I regularly listen to (Left of Center, FirstWave, Disorder, Alt Nation, and Underground Garage) that are just so much better than anything else out there for new, interesting music with few repeats. They seem to be a really innovative and clever company, quick to capitalize on obvious shortcomings of regular radio (obscenity and the FCC – they quickly signed Howard Stern and most of their channels play unedited music). They offer all of their programming over the Internet for subscribers, which to me is better than trying 10 different low-quality undependable Internet Radio stations before I can find one that works.
It has been one of those companies that has defied expectations and made a really cool idea into a very nice product. It will be nice to see them suceed, and with Stern and their new NFL contract, I think they have a good shot at it.
CarnalK & Manhattan, perhaps this topic is alittle too advanced for you.
some educational upgrades may bring you back to
reality and more intellectually interesting. Feel free
not to bother yourselves with anymore of my posts.
Edwino, Thankyou for some good constructive feedback.
60’s Vibration @ Sirius is pop. They regurgitate the same 200+ songs
over and over.
Classic Vinyl and The Vault touch the psychedelic mainstays,however,not on
a consisitant basis. Webradio stations play psychedelic and British Invasion
24/7 and again this is a free service.With the major groups you listed, Jefferson
Airplane is well represented on Sirius and XM. However, The Peanut Butter Con-
spiracy is excluded from the playlist. The PBC is well represented on Webstations
providing Psychedelic and West Coast Rock Channels.
A different issue is one’s “right” to buy/be able to find or obtain porno mags at Wal-mart or wherever:)