Censorship

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:46 am UTC

Malice wrote:1. I wish to give information which belongs to me to someone who wants to hear it; or someone wants me to give them information. Doing this is fine. Not doing it is also fine and is defined as "discretion". Neither should be limited by law (the exception being when the individual is not capable of consent as we normally define it).
2. I wish to give information which does not belong to me to someone else, without permission. This is defined as "indiscretion" and can be limited by law.

And three ways of reacting to it (I'm being redundant for clarity's sake):
1. I do not wish to reveal my information to a second party. This is discretion.
2. I am not allowed to reveal my information to a second consenting party. This is censorship.
3. I am not allowed to reveal someone else's information to a third party. This is the limitation of indiscretion.

How's that?

Ah very good! very good, a way of thinking of it that i'd not even considered! though while i do find it more satisfying (and definitely a sign that perhaps i was under a misconception that such a distinction could not be clearly made at this point in the discussion) than the previous declarations, i find it problematic in one point. The weakness of your definition is the idea of ownership.
You see, how do you define ownership?
Do i own my opinions?
Do i own the topic of a conversation i shared with another person, and anything they said?
Do i own information passed to me through a book?
Does a reporter own the results of their investigations, and further the contents of any paper they'd present?
Does a therapist own the conversation between he and a patient?
Does a lawyer own the conversation between he and a client?
Does the engineer who is researching and attempting to improve a bomb design own the blueprints?
Does the engineer who CREATED the bomb design own the blueprints?
Do i own religious teachings? who owns religious teachings? are they public domain? Is public domain the same as 'owned by everyone'?
Does the owner of nabisco own the recipe to his cookies?
Does the chef who created the recipe to Nabisco's cookies own the recipe?
Does the factory worker who works in Nabisco's factories with the recipe, own the recipe?

Where does ownership stop? Where does it start? How can it clearly be defined?

And to point out, indeed, i did present two very obvious options, which you addressed, such as the bank worker/social security number idea and the china/tibet discussion idea, both clearly either 'discretion' or 'censorship'. The idea was to present the poles, and between them illustrate the grey areas, in order to determine a criteria for discerning which is which. I've done it again too, for instance above, the last three questions. Clearly the owner of nabisco owns the recipe. Clearly the factory worker does not. But does the chef? A very grey area, i believe.

Also, i appreciate your redundancy. I'd rather read through an extra page of clarifications than read a two sentence explanation of a difficult topic.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:38 am UTC

Sarcio wrote:Addressing now, Fluff:
you seem to address only a part of the censorship issues. My first question must be, what of the rest? What about information such as a guide to build a bomb, or propaganda to incite violent rebellion against the government? should this be censored?
And my next question is, should then sexuality and the various interworkings between intimate male-female relationships be explained to 3 year olds? Does this not affront your sensibilities? Can you provide perhaps a specific justification as to why a parent should teach their 3 year old about sex, and why this is not potentially damaging to the child?
And a final response:
Perhaps indeed the best way to learn that a fire will burn you is to feel the heat. But perhaps the best time to learn that a fire will burn you is not upon first sight of the fire? And perhaps it is best not to allow some fires to burn you, as they may leave scars that will never heal?


Firstly: Nope, none of those things should be censored.

Secondly: Yes those things should absolutely be explained to children by their own parents. Obviously any smart parent will not go ramming harcdore violence and sexuality down the throat of a 3 year old, but it is quite possible to explain how these are indeed parts of the world, and ease them into understanding by an appropriate age. It should be left up to the discretion of said parents when to talk to their own kids about it, and should also be the responsibility of those parents to supervise their own children, and not left up to the government or TV to decide what is decent.

Thirdly: Nowhere did I say to allow the fire to burn you. Don't take the metaphor out of context.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Malice » Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:42 am UTC

Sarcio wrote:You see, how do you define ownership?

Let's see if I can determine this using your questions.

"Do i own my opinions?"
Yes, because you created them. Information you create is information you own (notwithstanding other agreements). Let's see if this rule holds up or needs changing...

"Do i own the topic of a conversation i shared with another person, and anything they said?"
Aha. On one level, yes, you own that information, because you observed it. You listened to the conversation--certainly you own your personal contributions to it. Whether you then have the right to reveal that information, however, is (in most cases) ruled by social constructs, not laws. A conversation might be prefaced with "Don't tell anybody, but..."; or there might be an unspoken agreement that one or both persons in the conversation will be discrete. This is, of course, voluntary, often part of the conditions of the relationship involved, which may be altered or terminated as retribution should that person then be indiscrete.
The bottom line, then, is that unless there is a spoken or unspoken agreement (enforced by social codes and not the law) over not sharing a conversation's information with a third party, you are free to do so. An example of a conversation with no agreement would be a discussion with a stranger about the weather. If need be, you can relate this discussion as an anecdote later without fear of legal or social retribution. On the other hand, if your sister tells you she had an abortion, it's not a good idea to tell all your friends and neighbors (on the third hand, if you do so, nobody's going to arrest you for it).

"Do i own information passed to me through a book?"
We're getting slightly gray, here; on the one hand, facts and ideas I read in a book become my knowledge and I can relate them to other people who have not read the book; on the other hand, I should not be able to relate all of that information, because that brings up copyright/economic problems. I suggest this sort of thing be guided by the "fair use" doctrine; and that, basically, in purchasing a book, I have purchased the rights to that information but not to the book itself (meaning the total of the content and presentation).

"Does a reporter own the results of their investigations, and further the contents of any paper they'd present?"
Yes.

"Does a therapist own the conversation between he and a patient?"
Here we have another agreement: when a person agrees to become a patient of the therapist, the therapist promises (and the person expects) that all information there will not be shared (barring specific exceptions delineated by law). This is partly enforced socioeconomically (a talkative therapist isn't likely to get many new patients) and partly by law (a therapist cannot reveal client information at risk of penalty, I believe).

"Does a lawyer own the conversation between he and a client?"
I realize this is similar to the preceeding question, but I'm going to answer it a little differently... The lawyer owns the conversation; so does the client. The client's ownership takes precedence, and without the client's permission, the lawyer is not allowed to reveal the information to a third party. This is, again, laid out in the basic lawyer-client relationship as held up socially, economically, and lawfully.

"Does the engineer who is researching and attempting to improve a bomb design own the blueprints?"
A little unclear here, perhaps. But I suppose you mean, does he own the blueprints he's trying to improve.
That depends on the status of the blueprints, which comes under patent law. I believe that if a certain design is patented, it isn't legal to use that design to improve upon it, although I'm not sure.
Although I suppose that even if the engineer has permission from the owner of the patent, the blueprints still don't belong to the engineer. But he can at least use them.

"Does the engineer who CREATED the bomb design own the blueprints?"
Again, that depends on what prior agreements are in place. If he has a contract with his employer (like most people, I believe) stating that anything he creates related to that employment belongs to them, then, well, it belongs to them.
If he creates it on his own time, then it naturally belongs to him.

"Do i own religious teachings? who owns religious teachings? are they public domain? Is public domain the same as 'owned by everyone'?"
Religious teachings can be owned--just ask Scientology, which sells them.
On the other hand, most religions survive and grow through evangelism, so most religions are free with their teachings--they want people to know them and share them. Gideon Bibles are one example of this.

Your second question, public domain, is specifically related to copyright law. Public domain is equal to "owned by no one"; if something in the public domain were owned by everyone, obviously everyone would have to come to some sort of agreement over what to do with it. But since anybody can do what they want with it, it is ownerless.

"Does the owner of nabisco own the recipe to his cookies?"
Presumably. He either invented it or he bought it, so it is his.

"Does the chef who created the recipe to Nabisco's cookies own the recipe?"
He did, until he sold it to Nabisco.

"Does the factory worker who works in Nabisco's factories with the recipe, own the recipe?"
No.

"Where does ownership stop? Where does it start? How can it clearly be defined?"

Let's see if I can answer this better now.

Information can exist unowned.

At a base state, you own:
1. Information you create. (Example: a recipe you invent, a joke you write.)
2. Information you observe. (Example: the other side of a conversation you have, a poll you administer to the public.)
3. Information you purchase. (Example: secrets you trade through gossip, a patent you purchase.)

These simple rules only seem to get muddied in your real-world examples because there already exist many rules and agreements about information ownership. An employer could mandate an NDA even after the employee is fired; a government agency can declare a scientist's work classified; a sister can ask a brother not to tell anyone about an abortion.
To use a personal example, my university owns whatever films I produce, because I agreed to let them do so in exchange for being allowed to study here. These agreements are okay (in a moral sense) because they are entered into voluntarily. They are enforced through social and legal frameworks.

Those three methods of ownership, then, cover any cases for which there are no superceding agreements; for any other case, of course, one must refer to the agreement.

User avatar
Okita
Staying Alive
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
Location: Finance land.

Postby Okita » Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:24 am UTC

Sarcio wrote:x is a therapist, and has a patient who he finds quite ridiculous, though he conducts himself professionally during sessions. x would like to regale y with details about this patient.


While I understand your other examples and the point you are trying to make, I'd like to point out the above example really is more of a Doctor-Patient privilege case. In fact, that case by itself is extremely more complicated than you originally let on and could take up an entire thread on its own.

Sarcio wrote: Have i once offered a clear position? Have i declared myself to be anti-censorship? Surely i've had enough support, i could have grabbed one of the clearly anti censorship posts (see fluff's for example), and declared it to be so, making a public statement immediately that censorship was wrong and the people who did it cruel stupid shortsighted heartless morons. Of course, i haven't done that, now have i? In fact, i've actually advocated a certain degree of censorship, if i've given a position at all. And i'm aware that the time difference is not so great. but again, i've already stated that it was this occurance which caused me to question the issue. Realizing that i had not before fully questioned this issue, i decided to ask the public of their opinion, in order to help me form an opinion. So indeed, it DID have an effect on my posts. It made me ask the question. I believe they were fully in the right in 'censoring' me, and it's simple editing, not censoring, anyway. They changed my colors. That's not removing any information, save what information i had personally placed in each color. And i'll say it, that yes, that WAS the personal experience with censorship i experienced. More specifically, it was my immediate revulsion in the feeling that the information i had put out and attached my name to had been covertly edited by another person, regardless of what they'd done. In essence, had they been abusive, they could have written 'i hate you all' a thousand times, and i would have no grounds to deny that i had not done it. it was THIS which made me question my position.


Honestly, I have been keeping small tabs on this debate but haven't participated mostly because of Sarcio's insistence on not making a vague assault on past moderator actions and whatnot. Which is fine. Sarcio has officially made the statement that this isn't entirely about the mods and he's not focused on that issue as much as he is on Censorship in general (I'm saying he for now but Sarcio could be a she for all I know or care).

But I'm writing now to point out that Sarcio has yet to really offer any sort of opinion whatsoever besides a waffling "I am sort of for Censorship"/ "I'm sort of against Censorship".

Or rather, to clarify 22/7's original assertions, he's actually arguing more about the differentiation of when Censorship is applicable or not, offering vague examples but never taking a stance himself. Or for that matter offering any supporting argument. I hardly think it's fair to require further details on a question every time someone attempts to make a response.

The real problem is that under Sarcio's definition of Censorship (information being held by a controlling body), there are quite a few permutations of the problem that each could be argued on a single basis. As Sarcio brought up, what about engineers, doctors, lawyers, and journalists? Journalists have a responsibility of freedom to the press and a responsibility to the privacy of their sources. Doctors have a responsibility of protection to their patients but also have a responsibility to the public for things such as sexual diseases.

The way that those questions are grouped together implies that they can all be solved by one solution which is quite improbable and doesn't merit page long discussions of further questions about the previous questions.

At least that's my opinion on the matter.
"I may or may not be a raptor. There is no way of knowing until entering a box that I happen to be in and then letting me sunder the delicious human flesh from your body in reptile fury."

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:19 am UTC

Ah joy, plenty to respond to.
I'll start with fluff:
I apologize for the misuse of your metaphor, and for misunderstanding your previous statement. I had taken it to mean that anyone who asks should be told everything about an issue, even a small child asking what mommy and daddy were doing last night. I see this is not the issue now. I believe you have a point, Fluff, and have made a reasonable stand. I would like to inquire, however, on what grounds you believe documents intended to incite violence are permissable to release to the public. Does the freedom to say what you want supercede the safety of the populous? take for instance, the hapless citizen, who has neither read nor been aware of these documents, killed in the riots that ensue (hypothetical worst-case), caused by information which he was not party to. Given that he was negatively affected by the information in a way that he had no choice, does the freedom of speech still supercede his right to safety and life? Note: i'm not denying your point of view, just asking for a small clarification. I believe you have a fully valid point of view.

Malice:
Your definition of ownership is quite complete, and i enjoy this fact. Though i find a few small flaws with it yet still.
malice wrote:1. Information you create. (Example: a recipe you invent, a joke you write.)
2. Information you observe. (Example: the other side of a conversation you have, a poll you administer to the public.)
3. Information you purchase. (Example: secrets you trade through gossip, a patent you purchase.)
Those three methods of ownership, then, cover any cases for which there are no superceding agreements; for any other case, of course, one must refer to the agreement.

I greatly enjoy your stipulation at the end, that superceding agreements must be taken into account before one can consider the issue of ownership. This saves much complication and is a reasonable idea.
1: Is information i created based on another's information still my own? For instance, if i take a file from the patent offices, and improve upon the design in significant ways, without changing the fundamental design, do i own the new design wholly? Is there a partial ownership?
2: If i observe, illegally, a conversation, such as spying on a government official or eavesdropping on a therapist's session, do i still own this information? Has it then been stolen? Does theft, while illegal, still transfer ownership?
3: If i purchase information through dubious means, and the information was originally pirated, but i am not aware of this, do i still own it?

Mind you, these are somewhat extraneous, i simply wish to test to a degree your revisions. As it is though, i am ready to accept this newer division.

Okita:
Okita, i am aware of the complexity of that situation, and that is exactly the reason i presented it. You see, if one is unable to determine ownership in ANY and EVERY situation which may possibly arise, through some set of criteria, then one cannot rely on a definition based around ownership. That is exactly the question to answer before proceeding with this definition, or, in failing to do so, revising it.
As to your parenthetical concerns, i'm quite happily a he.
And your point is very valid. I have not presented any position. If you re-read the text you quoted, you'll see that your post is really a redundancy, as i've already stated that. There is a reason for that.
I wrote:i'd like to know the moral standpoint of this forum's demographic with regards to this issue, censorship

That's from the good ol' Opening post. That's my personal goal in this thread, to achieve a better understanding of the various points in this issue (see my discussion with Malice for an example of a very productive discussion of a personal preconception, and it's resulting revision). This stems from a personal lack of any real grounding in the issue. Having never really considered it before recently, i found myself at a loss as to answer the question i posed to myself, 'is censorship justified?' In failing to answer that question, i sought enlightenment, from those in this forum. I do believe, however, the assertion that i have been 'waffling' is incorrect. I have said that to in some cases censorship is justified, and in others it is not, though i have no criteria on which to judge it. My position has not changed on this.

As it is my objective, in this discussion, to further my own enlightenment on this issue, i find it more productive to withhold my own opinions. As my opinion is formed off of incomplete notions and as i'd put it, fairly invalid, i find it to be somewhat detrimental to the discussion at hand. Not only that, but as i am intending to form a better justified opinion, it makes no sense to allow my own opinion into the discussion until such a point as it is relevant but more complete. Biasing the discussion toward or against my own opinion at the moment does me no good.

Indeed my definition of censorship contains many situations which are vastly different and may yield different results. I believed i had made it clear that the objective of my broad definition was to consider censorship as a whole, and then revise the criteria on which we define 'acceptable censorship'. That is to say, yes, it's braod, it's counter-intuitive, but it's intended to be so, in order to have obvious instances as to where it definitively is justified and other instances where it is not justified, and then move toward the middle from either end, until such a criteria is created that satisfactorily defines 'acceptable censorship', in all situations, including those 'exceptions to the rule'. Does this not make sense to you? Is this so unreasonable that it must continually be questioned?
I do believe they may all be solved by one solution. the goal is to develope a solution that encompasses all circumstances. What is the point of having a solution which only encompasses a majority, such as "censorship is bad so long as it is justified". Well, of course, this makes sense, but how do you determine it is justified? It is no solution at all. A later definition, then, of what 'justified' is, may then offer a solution to all cases. Understand?

And as you've not contributed anything of real substance to this discussion, save to criticise those in it, i hardly think it's fair of you to criticise anyone in this discussion. That doesn't stop you, does it?
I'm not demanding, or requiring further revisions. I'm simply saying i cannot accept a differentiation between 'censorship' and 'discretion' without an adequate distinction between these terms. For what that matters to each, it is for them to decide. Had malice replied with 'whatever dude, your way doesn't make sense to me', i'd have respectfully responded with 'same to you, buddy', and we'd have been on our ways, not thinking of the discussion any further. He chose to respond with a clarification, though, and i've acknowledged not only that it was valid but that he is likely going to prove me incorrect.
You see, okita, this is what we call a 'discussion'. That is, it's an exchange where two or more people present ideas and question each other's ideas. I've presented my idea, he questioned it, presenting his own idea. I questioned that, he revised. Is this an illogical course of a discussion? Would you prefer i simply accept anything anyone say without questioning it? This seems an irresponsible way to live. But should you decide to live so, i'd like to declare that you're a duck. If you refuse to question this, you must believe you are a duck, no? Perhaps this illustrates my frustration with your question.

I'm going to say, as enlightening as these side discussions about the discussion are...they're useless. Talking about why we're talking about censorship, or whether or not we're justified in the way we're approaching the issue...really doesn't have anything to do with the issue. If you have an idea on censorship, i'd be more than happy to see you post it here. If you have an idea on any other issues, including on the manner of discussion, me as a person, my motives, or my fairness, please, by all means, keep that crap out of this thread. PM me, start a new thread "is it ok for sarcio to ask so many damned questoins", but do not discuss it here, please. It's grown quite laborious, and more than irritating. I've already addressed any issues that need to be addressed external to censorship. Back to the topic, eh?
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Postby Maurog » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:47 am UTC

Of course you own the information you possess, even if you acquired it in illegal ways. Just like if you steal a diamond, you are the illegal owner, and will be the owner until you get caught. So when you get caught swindling stolen information, you can get in trouble with the law and it can be "censored", which equals to "confiscated for the pending investigation".

Sarcio's long post seems to indicate he is in favor of censorship, as it really looks like an attempt to censor Okita.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Malice » Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:45 pm UTC

Sarcio wrote:Malice:
Your definition of ownership is quite complete, and i enjoy this fact. Though i find a few small flaws with it yet still.
malice wrote:1. Information you create. (Example: a recipe you invent, a joke you write.)
2. Information you observe. (Example: the other side of a conversation you have, a poll you administer to the public.)
3. Information you purchase. (Example: secrets you trade through gossip, a patent you purchase.)
Those three methods of ownership, then, cover any cases for which there are no superceding agreements; for any other case, of course, one must refer to the agreement.

I greatly enjoy your stipulation at the end, that superceding agreements must be taken into account before one can consider the issue of ownership. This saves much complication and is a reasonable idea.
1: Is information i created based on another's information still my own? For instance, if i take a file from the patent offices, and improve upon the design in significant ways, without changing the fundamental design, do i own the new design wholly? Is there a partial ownership?
2: If i observe, illegally, a conversation, such as spying on a government official or eavesdropping on a therapist's session, do i still own this information? Has it then been stolen? Does theft, while illegal, still transfer ownership?
3: If i purchase information through dubious means, and the information was originally pirated, but i am not aware of this, do i still own it?

Mind you, these are somewhat extraneous, i simply wish to test to a degree your revisions. As it is though, i am ready to accept this newer division.


These are pretty easy questions.

1. Information you create based on another's information is your own; but if you've based that on "stolen" information--say, somebody else's patented design--then don't try selling your new information. You own the additions you made, no more, no less.

2. You own the overheard information. But it has been stolen (your example states it was obtained illegally).
On second thought, theft doesn't transfer ownership; it merely expands possession. Yeah, I like that better. You possess stolen information; you do not own it. Therefore, you do not have the right to give it away (or sell it), anymore than I have the right to publicize the credit card information I got off of the phone bill you threw away.

3. From an outsider's standpoint, you only possess this information (just like you'd possess stolen jewelry, even if you didn't know it was stolen). Just like with property, you have no real claim to it, and do not have the right to be indiscrete.
From your standpoint, you might think you own that information; but it's your fault for trading in "dubious" ways.

Quick summary: stolen information means a transfer of possession, not ownership (and possession gives you no rights); building on someone else's information might not be kosher, and at best means you own what you added.

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:39 pm UTC

Malice wrote:1. I wish to give information which belongs to me to someone who wants to hear it; or someone wants me to give them information. Doing this is fine. Not doing it is also fine and is defined as "discretion". Neither should be limited by law (the exception being when the individual is not capable of consent as we normally define it).
2. I wish to give information which does not belong to me to someone else, without permission. This is defined as "indiscretion" and can be limited by law.

And three ways of reacting to it (I'm being redundant for clarity's sake):
1. I do not wish to reveal my information to a second party. This is discretion.
2. I am not allowed to reveal my information to a second consenting party. This is censorship.
3. I am not allowed to reveal someone else's information to a third party. This is the limitation of indiscretion.

Malice wrote:At a base state, you own:
1. Information you create. (Example: a recipe you invent, a joke you write.)
2. Information you observe. (Example: the other side of a conversation you have, a poll you administer to the public.)
3. Information you purchase. (Example: secrets you trade through gossip, a patent you purchase.)

Malice wrote:stolen information means a transfer of possession, not ownership (and possession gives you no rights); building on someone else's information might not be kosher, and at best means you own what you added.

I believe, above is presented a more concise definition of the limitation between censorship and 'discretionary action' thanks in majority to Malice. I've found this definition satisfactory, so now i pose the question, does anyone else see any problems in it (mind you, you were invited to present this dissent at any time!). I think that being said, we can limit censorship to: 'The restriction of the release of information which one owns by any controlling authority.' Does this sound good to you, in a nutshell, and then referring to the above clauses for more clairity?


Maurog wrote:Sarcio's long post seems to indicate he is in favor of censorship, as it really looks like an attempt to censor Okita.

Ah, so great to see one issue on the tail of another, so well-timed maurog. I personaly disagree that my request that he take his extraneous discussion elsewhere is censorship. I intended to address this issue shortly, and i suppose now is as good a time as any.

The new distinction which must be made, is between censorship and relocation. Is it still censorship if the information is simply restricted from one area or one audience? That is, by requesting that Okita present his qualms with my motivations in a separate post or private message, does this qualify as censorship? Is it censorship in the same way as were i to demand that he does not say any more of it, anywhere? Is either of those censorship in the same way as were i to (given proper moderator priveleges) delete every part of every post in this thread which contained any extranious discussion and offer a warning or account restriction to anyone who kept up the inanity? Where does the line lie, between simple appropriation of information and removal from the public eye? At what point does an attempt to either keep certain information from certain audiences (think an R rated movie, or an adult bookstore's over 18 limit) become censorship?

An interesting question to be posed:
In a hypothetical situation, let us say that the moderators of this board had grown tired of this discussion here. As a reaction, they have decided to place it in a separate board, which is locked and invisible. They do not, however, wish to keep us from having this discussion, and they have activated the accounts of everyone who has previously posted here, such that they, and only they, can see it. This means, those who are participating in the discussion may continue, but the information, in no way, can be viewed by outsiders. Censorship? Relocation? A third category?
Before you declare this question inane, think of the manhattan project. I have no details on it, but i believe i'm pretty safe to say that the government allowed the involved scientists to carry on their research (information they're creating, but the government potentially owns, much in the way i'd say that this board potentially owns this information), but only in private, and not reveal it to an outside source. Well, that seems clearly as though it is not censorship. Why then, does it seem legitimate to call the board reallocation censorship to a degree (or at least, it seems so to me.)? Is there a difference?
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Postby 4=5 » Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:45 pm UTC

if you were intending for the information to be veiwed by people who hadn't posted in it,
then yes I think I'd call it censorship, but we really need more words

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:20 am UTC

4=5 wrote:if you were intending for the information to be veiwed by people who hadn't posted in it,
then yes I think I'd call it censorship, but we really need more words

read the paragraph above. a new word is exactly what i'm questing for.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:25 am UTC

Sarcio wrote:
4=5 wrote:if you were intending for the information to be veiwed by people who hadn't posted in it,
then yes I think I'd call it censorship, but we really need more words

read the paragraph above. a new word is exactly what i'm questing for.


The tl;dr factor in this thread is getting quite high. I do, however, quite agree with the fact that you're going to need a different word if you're going to define censorship in the aforementioned manner. We're scientific people here (well, some of us are, anyway). How about C1 and C2? Or Censorship*?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:46 am UTC

22/7, while i understand the simplicity presented by this i'd like, for a pragmatic sense, if we could find words that clearly define what the hell we're talking about. You know, so that when we're talking about it, and we DO encounter the tl;dr factor...the jackass that didn't read will at least have some clue what we mean. The difference between censorship and discretion is clear, easily, simply by the words, and for a more definitive meaning, one can read up and check the provided definition. I just think it'd be too easy to get C1 and C2 mixed up, and the hilarity that may ensue would be out of place.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:25 am UTC

Sarcio wrote:You know, so that when we're talking about it, and we DO encounter the tl;dr factor...the jackass that didn't read will at least have some clue what we mean.


Never cater to the jackass.

It only serves to lower the commonly accepted standard.

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Fluff wrote:
Sarcio wrote:You know, so that when we're talking about it, and we DO encounter the tl;dr factor...the jackass that didn't read will at least have some clue what we mean.


Never cater to the jackass.

It only serves to lower the commonly accepted standard.

yes, in a more open situation, indeed. I must first point out, though, that you failed to address in the least my previous point addressing you.
perhaps it was...dare i say...too long. and you didn't read? *cough*

and then, i'd point out, in a situation like this, it is MOST productive to the discussion that we DO cater to the jackass, so that instances of their jackassery don't slow down our intelligent discussion. eh?
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:27 am UTC

Sarcio wrote:yes, in a more open situation, indeed. I must first point out, though, that you failed to address in the least my previous point addressing you.
perhaps it was...dare i say...too long. and you didn't read? *cough*

and then, i'd point out, in a situation like this, it is MOST productive to the discussion that we DO cater to the jackass, so that instances of their jackassery don't slow down our intelligent discussion. eh?


Actually I did read it; I just haven't got the time nor interest to bother getting pedantic at the moment. I have made my points, and they stand as such. I don't require whole pages to make myself clear.

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:32 am UTC

Fluff wrote:
Sarcio wrote:yes, in a more open situation, indeed. I must first point out, though, that you failed to address in the least my previous point addressing you.
perhaps it was...dare i say...too long. and you didn't read? *cough*

and then, i'd point out, in a situation like this, it is MOST productive to the discussion that we DO cater to the jackass, so that instances of their jackassery don't slow down our intelligent discussion. eh?


Actually I did read it; I just haven't got the time nor interest to bother getting pedantic at the moment. I have made my points, and they stand as such. I don't require whole pages to make myself clear.

Sorry you feel that way. I was hoping you'd indulge my curiosity. It makes me wonder, however, if you have no time for such debates, why you'd participate in them at all?
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Postby Maurog » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:35 am UTC

I guess we can lock the thread now... this is not serious business.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:40 pm UTC

Maurog wrote:I guess we can lock the thread now... this is not serious business.

I'll address this publicly because this is really starting to annoy me. Given what misgivings you may have about the origin of the thread, i'll understand if you're biased against it. I'll try to address this issue, however, in an unbiased manner. The ironic stupidity of what you just said makes absolutely no sense. if you're going to say 'this thread is full of spam', don't say it in SPAM yourself! That is to say, would all of you people shut up about what, why, and how we're discussing something, and...DISCUSS it. If my 'thinly veiled complaint' (for those who refuse to believe the pile of reasons i can give why i wouldn't do such a thing) offends you SO much that you're unable to participate in it in a contributing way, then DON'T! as many threads are in the xkcd database (for surely this isn't a new forum) that go unread, just count this among them. There is no need to clutter up a perfectly legitimate thread with complaints about how illegitimate it is. That's like putting a sign in the middle of the road declaring that signs in the middle of the road are unsafe. No shit? So let me make this clear, before i start requesting posts be deleted (ironic). if you have a complaint, present it to the MODERATORS. you know, the ones who care. and not in the thread, they probably don't read every single thread, scanning it meticulously for useless one-line complaints about how bad the thread is. Otherwise, button it.

As to the issue at hand, i'd like to present a concept of 'virtual ownership'. That is, should i acquire information by dubious means (i.e. theft), and take it into such a place as the theft is not detected by the current authority, i'd virtually own it. That is, if they're preventing me from saying what i want to say, not because it's not my information to give, but because they don't want me giving that information, while it is not technically censorship, i'd like to declare it so, using the idea that i virtually own it, so long as the authority believes so.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:19 pm UTC

Sorry, but I don't see the need for anything beyond censorship and discretion (or discrepancy, if you're my middle school administration) at this point. Why, in, say, 100 words or less, is there a need for anything beyond these two?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Okita
Staying Alive
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
Location: Finance land.

Postby Okita » Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:23 pm UTC

Sarcio wrote:As to the issue at hand, i'd like to present a concept of 'virtual ownership'. That is, should i acquire information by dubious means (i.e. theft), and take it into such a place as the theft is not detected by the current authority, i'd virtually own it. That is, if they're preventing me from saying what i want to say, not because it's not my information to give, but because they don't want me giving that information, while it is not technically censorship, i'd like to declare it so, using the idea that i virtually own it, so long as the authority believes so.


But "virtual ownership" not censorship at all in any remote sense whatsoever. What you're talking about is intellectual property rights which is an entirely different convoluted discussion whose factors range from creativity to patenting to pharmaceutical companies especially if you also bring in international laws.
"I may or may not be a raptor. There is no way of knowing until entering a box that I happen to be in and then letting me sunder the delicious human flesh from your body in reptile fury."

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:30 pm UTC

22/7:
The new distinction is between censorship and relocation. Is it still censorship if the information is simply restricted from one area or one audience? That is, by requesting that Okita present his qualms with my motivations in a separate post or private message, does this qualify as censorship? Is it censorship in the same way as were i to demand that he does not say any more of it, anywhere? Are those censorship in the same way as were i to delete every post here which contained any extraneous discussion and offer warning to anyone who kept up the inanity?
a full 100 words in that. (this makes 110, sorry)
defining a different aspect of censorship than the scope of what information it affects, now asking to what degree of 'removal' can censorship be attributed. (137 now, sorry.)

okita:
Ah, you've misunderstood, i think. the distinction between censorship (restriction of willing release of OWNED information) and limited indiscretion (restriction of release of information owned by someone else), has already been addressed. I simply intended to say...to exclude an extraneous technicality (prevention is worth more than cure!), that ownership be extended not to what you own yourself, but what the government/authority believes you own. That is...the police man is protecting me when he stops the criminal from stealing my wallet. He is not, however, protecting me, when he stops the man from taking his own wallet back. If, however, he believes the man is a criminal, and does not know that i've already stolen his wallet, then he IS, by nature, protecting me, even though he's inadvertantly assisting breaking the law. does this make sense? censorship is more of...restriction of information that it is believed you own. So if you steal a patent document for (be mature) a sex toy, and take it to china to produce it there, and the government restricts you from using this patent (not knowing that you don't own it) because it is inappropriate (by their standards), then it IS censorship. This is to say, though the chinese government is simply restricting you from revealing information you don't own (defined as limited indiscretion), they are simply intending to prevent you from revealing information you own (defined as censorship). So then, by the government believing you own this information, they are allowing you 'virtual ownership', making their action censorship by nature of intent, not actuality. does this make sense? This does not, however, mean you own the information in any legal manner, it is still stolen, but for the sake of determining whether a situation is censorship, it can be said that you virtually own this information, making it censorship rather than limited indiscretion. does this make sense?
Last edited by Sarcio on Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Postby ZeroSum » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:35 pm UTC

"Censorship is un-American? Does that mean it's European?"

Sorry, it's just a quote from a movie that I find entertaining. It's off-topic, but I think it's funny. I was hoping someone would identify and empathize.
Last edited by ZeroSum on Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:46 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:41 pm UTC

ZeroSum wrote:"Censorship is un-American? Does that mean it's European?"

None here made that claim. try to keep your posts at least relevant to the discussion at hand, thank you. And that's just semantics. If anyone had claimed that, i'd argue it as the common conception of the term 'american' in the eyes of an american as what is right (for surely one must think oneself and one's country as 'right' to be fully content), and things 'un-american' as being 'morally unjustified' following a common lingo.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Postby Azrael » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:48 pm UTC

Sarcio wrote:
ZeroSum wrote:"Censorship is un-American? Does that mean it's European?"

None here made that claim. try to keep your posts at least relevant to the discussion at hand, thank you.

You don't own the thread, Sarcio.

User avatar
chaosspawn
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, MA

Postby chaosspawn » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:27 pm UTC

Relocating discussions is actually quite American, see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:32 pm UTC

@Sarcio: Yes those are forms of censorship, kind of. That is, they are if you assume that you actually have the power to enforce them (I'm assuming a government would). Is it wrong for you to request that a discussion take place via PMs instead of on a forum? No. Is it wrong for the government, etc. to limit what information they give to their public in the interest of national security? No. Is it wrong for you (assuming you were a mod and had the authority to) delete all bits of extraneous information in each post? No. Are these forms of censorship? Yes, if you are indeed in a position where you can enforce these requests/demands. If not, no. It'd just be you bitching at someone not to do something you didn't like. I don't believe that any of those require another word to better define them (at least, not another noun, like censorship. More adjectives/adverbs/etc., fine, but not a completely new noun).
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:41 pm UTC

I see what you're saying. So then the stipulation could be made that censorship is the removal of any information locally, with inclusion to relocation, of any form of owned information.

This can then be satisfactory, given a criteria on which to base what censorship is acceptable, to say that those things deemed 'less inappropriate' may still be censored, perhaps a new subset 'soft censorship' as opposed to 'hard censorship', but still accessable to the public. I like this idea.

Hard censorship would be instances in which censored material is prohibited from release entirely. Soft censorship would be any relocation and restriction such as age, up to but not including entire prohibition. Is this acceptable to everyone else?
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
Okita
Staying Alive
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
Location: Finance land.

Postby Okita » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:55 pm UTC

Sarcio wrote:okita:
Ah, you've misunderstood, i think. the distinction between censorship (restriction of willing release of OWNED information) and limited indiscretion (restriction of release of information owned by someone else), has already been addressed. I simply intended to say...to exclude an extraneous technicality (prevention is worth more than cure!), that ownership be extended not to what you own yourself, but what the government/authority believes you own.

I understand quite perfectly. The problem is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. Part of your ownership is defined by the legal system within your country and (at least in America) citizens should not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Your example of the police man simply points out that sometimes, the most obvious visible solution is unclear which is why police men are supposed to take both parties to the station and examine the situation thoroughly to see what the situation truly is (although that is not necessarily the case).

sarcio wrote:censorship is more of...restriction of information that it is believed you own. So if you steal a patent document for (be mature) a sex toy, and take it to china to produce it there, and the government restricts you from using this patent (not knowing that you don't own it) because it is inappropriate (by their standards), then it IS censorship. This is to say, though the chinese government is simply restricting you from revealing information you don't own (defined as limited indiscretion), they are simply intending to prevent you from revealing information you own (defined as censorship). So then, by the government believing you own this information, they are allowing you 'virtual ownership', making their action censorship by nature of intent, not actuality. does this make sense? This does not, however, mean you own the information in any legal manner, it is still stolen, but for the sake of determining whether a situation is censorship, it can be said that you virtually own this information, making it censorship rather than limited indiscretion. does this make sense?


That makes no sense whatsoever. But let's analyze it. If I'm correct, you're claiming that virtual ownership is when the government assumes you own intellectual property despite the fact that the information is stolen (which is an entirely different situation that could be argued in a different thread based upon international intellectual property rights... a topic argued in the UN quite frequently). Unfortunately, whether you're believed to own the information has no impact whatsoever on the government restricting that information being disseminated. As you've pointed out, "censorship is a restriction of information".

No wait, I lied. You've added a 'believed it is your own" bit to the end. I don't think anyone thinks you can't be censored if you don't own the information you display. Example: The Tank Man image in China is censored but no one in particular owns the picture. No one is making royalties whenever that picture shows up anymore. Same thing for the more gruesome aspects of the Tianamen Square Massacre. Or the years of Chinese History destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.

But to answer the question you seem to favor using... No, you are not making much sense. You are making increasingly less sense the more I read your writing and I would suggest that your arguments can be conveyed a lot more clearly if you improved your writing talents (although they are still arguably better than the average American).
"I may or may not be a raptor. There is no way of knowing until entering a box that I happen to be in and then letting me sunder the delicious human flesh from your body in reptile fury."

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Postby yy2bggggs » Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:01 am UTC

Censorship requires:
  • A communication medium
  • A message that one person wants to convey
  • An audience that potentially has interest in the message
  • A controller of the medium
  • An active role by the controller of the medium to prevent the message from being communicated to the party that has potential interest in receiving the message over that medium.
If there is no potentially interested party (e.g., the case of your wanting to tell me something about your money issues in Nigeria asking me for help, and my filtering it out of my email box), it is not censorship. If you can communicate the same information a different way (e.g., I'm forbidding you from making a public political announcement, by means of using sound amplified to 200dB outside of an apartment building, precisely because doing so is intrusive and annoying), it is not censorship. If there is a potentially interested party, however, and someone in control actively prevents information from getting to that party (e.g., the family whose child you are holding for ransom doesn't really have 20 million dollars in that briefcase--it's a time delay tactic while they try to save the child; but someone actively prevents that information from getting to you via a contact you have on the outside), that is censorship.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:47 am UTC

yy2bggggs wrote:Censorship requires:
  • A communication medium
  • A message that one person wants to convey
  • An audience that potentially has interest in the message
  • A controller of the medium
  • An active role by the controller of the medium to prevent the message from being communicated to the party that has potential interest in receiving the message over that medium.
If there is no potentially interested party (e.g., the case of your wanting to tell me something about your money issues in Nigeria asking me for help, and my filtering it out of my email box), it is not censorship. If you can communicate the same information a different way (e.g., I'm forbidding you from making a public political announcement, by means of using sound amplified to 200dB outside of an apartment building, precisely because doing so is intrusive and annoying), it is not censorship. If there is a potentially interested party, however, and someone in control actively prevents information from getting to that party (e.g., the family whose child you are holding for ransom doesn't really have 20 million dollars in that briefcase--it's a time delay tactic while they try to save the child; but someone actively prevents that information from getting to you via a contact you have on the outside), that is censorship.


I would argue there are good types of censorship though. Such as preventing saying "fire" in a crowded theater, or broadcasting the private information of an individual without their consent.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:56 am UTC

zenten wrote:I would argue there are good types of censorship though. Such as preventing saying "fire" in a crowded theater, or broadcasting the private information of an individual without their consent.
He didn't really make any value judgments on whether the censorship was good or bad (and his example seems to suggest some good censorship).

However, this does illustrate a possible flaw in yy2bggggs's definition- the audience potentially has interest in the message (if there's a fire, they would like to know), but the message is a deliberate lie. Would this get tossed out as not censorship because the audience doesn't have an interest in being lied to?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Postby yy2bggggs » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:14 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:However, this does illustrate a possible flaw in yy2bggggs's definition- the audience potentially has interest in the message (if there's a fire, they would like to know), but the message is a deliberate lie. Would this get tossed out as not censorship because the audience doesn't have an interest in being lied to?

A lie is an attempt to deceive. Suppose I had an intent to deceive you, and I yelled fire. But, by coincidence, suppose there actually was a fire. Furthermore, suppose you are interested in whether or not there was a fire.

Or suppose just the opposite thing occurred--you think you see fire in a crowded theater, and you yell fire. But you are mistaken.

Now what? We just have more complicated situations invoking quality of the intent of information, quality of the information itself, attempts to deceive, etc. None of which really has to do with censorship, but none of which was in my definition either. In other words, this is nit picking.

Technically, what you're doing is you're using the term "interest" in a distinct way. In terms of censorship, the information need not even be communicating a proposition (you can censor, for example, pictures of pandas)--so it not only has nothing to do with quality of information, it has nothing to do with claims that can have truth values.

I think what I meant by "potential interest" was stated clearly enough using my examples.
Last edited by yy2bggggs on Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:54 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
zenten wrote:I would argue there are good types of censorship though. Such as preventing saying "fire" in a crowded theater, or broadcasting the private information of an individual without their consent.
He didn't really make any value judgments on whether the censorship was good or bad (and his example seems to suggest some good censorship).

However, this does illustrate a possible flaw in yy2bggggs's definition- the audience potentially has interest in the message (if there's a fire, they would like to know), but the message is a deliberate lie. Would this get tossed out as not censorship because the audience doesn't have an interest in being lied to?


It's still censorship. Because otherwise there is only one political or religious truth allowed under freedom of expression.

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:09 am UTC

Malice wrote:1. I wish to give information which belongs to me to someone who wants to hear it; or someone wants me to give them information. Doing this is fine. Not doing it is also fine and is defined as "discretion". Neither should be limited by law (the exception being when the individual is not capable of consent as we normally define it).
2. I wish to give information which does not belong to me to someone else, without permission. This is defined as "indiscretion" and can be limited by law.

And three ways of reacting to it (I'm being redundant for clarity's sake):
1. I do not wish to reveal my information to a second party. This is discretion.
2. I am not allowed to reveal my information to a second consenting party. This is censorship.
3. I am not allowed to reveal someone else's information to a third party. This is the limitation of indiscretion.

Malice wrote:At a base state, you own:
1. Information you create. (Example: a recipe you invent, a joke you write.)
2. Information you observe. (Example: the other side of a conversation you have, a poll you administer to the public.)
3. Information you purchase. (Example: secrets you trade through gossip, a patent you purchase.)

Malice wrote:stolen information means a transfer of possession, not ownership (and possession gives you no rights); building on someone else's information might not be kosher, and at best means you own what you added.

Okita, in the context of the definition provided above, your post makes no sense. please please PLEASE try reading at least part of the thread, you'd have seen this if you had.
After you've read that, if you would like to revise your post, i'll understand.


yy2bggggs wrote:Censorship requires:

A communication medium

A message that one person wants to convey

An audience that potentially has interest in the message

A controller of the medium

An active role by the controller of the medium to prevent the message from being communicated to the party that has potential interest in receiving the message over that medium.
If there is no potentially interested party (e.g., the case of your wanting to tell me something about your money issues in Nigeria asking me for help, and my filtering it out of my email box), it is not censorship. If you can communicate the same information a different way (e.g., I'm forbidding you from making a public political announcement, by means of using sound amplified to 200dB outside of an apartment building, precisely because doing so is intrusive and annoying), it is not censorship. If there is a potentially interested party, however, and someone in control actively prevents information from getting to that party (e.g., the family whose child you are holding for ransom doesn't really have 20 million dollars in that briefcase--it's a time delay tactic while they try to save the child; but someone actively prevents that information from getting to you via a contact you have on the outside), that is censorship.

I believe this to be an entirely flawed definition.
1) assuming interest does not make censorship. It is still censorship if the government presents me from publishing a book, regardless of whether anyone is interested in it. I wanted to publish it, and they said no, and that is censorship no matter how you want to look at it. If they said no, because you plagiarized, that's a bit different, as they have a fully legal objection, publishing it would be breaking the law, i stole the information, and therefore i cannot publish it as my own.
2) simply prohibiting something on the grounds that it is annoying is not censorship. It is not saying that you can't announce your political agenda, it is saying stop yelling at 200 freaking decibels and speak at a normal goddamn volume! It is not censorship to say 'no you can't write your name on my wall in spray paint', because it is not 'don't write your name', but 'don't write on my goddamn wall!'. Get the difference? The reason for preventing the communication is just as relevant as the communication. When the government says no you can't say what you are wanting to say, period, that is censorship. When the government says 'go ahead and say it, but not in that way'. Or, phrased differently, when the government says 'the way you are trying to present your information is against the law', without regard to the information itself, it is not censorship. does this sound reasonable?
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Postby yy2bggggs » Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:32 am UTC

Sarcio wrote:
yy2bggggs wrote:An audience that potentially has interest in the message

I believe this to be an entirely flawed definition.
1) assuming interest does not make censorship.

There is a world of difference between assuming interest and having an audience with potential interest. Potential interest in the message can be satisfied by proxy, but is definitely a critical part of censorship. The precise meaning of potential interest in this case is distinct from actual interest--in fact, you are to interpret what I mean by potential interest according to the examples I gave, but the general idea is that there should be a realistic expectation of interested parties within the medium, regardless of whether or not there are actual interested parties.

The example I gave here was filtering out Nigerian scam messages from my mailbox. That is not censorship, because there's no potential interest in the information. Another example would be forbidding you from publishing your ideas of the influence of Asian culture on the development of modern weapon systems--in the New England Journal of Medicine. There's no potential interest in the subject of weapon development within the medium, because it's about medicine, not weapon development.

In the case of book publishing in general, there is, reasonably speaking, a potential interest in any information you want to put in the book. But it's still not censorship in itself to forbid publishing the book--there must be a suppression of information; the actual message needs to be prevented by a controlling authority.
If they said no, because you plagiarized, that's a bit different, as they have a fully legal objection, publishing it would be breaking the law, i stole the information, and therefore i cannot publish it as my own.

The legality of the thing has nothing to do with whether or not it is censorship. Legality is far removed from the definition. Censorship can be made legal or illegal.

The whole stolen information argument is a bunch of baloney. At the heart of it, nearly all information is "stolen".

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Postby Azrael » Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:29 pm UTC

Sarcio wrote:
yy2bggggs wrote:Censorship requires:

A communication medium

A message that one person wants to convey

An audience that potentially has interest in the message

A controller of the medium

An active role by the controller of the medium to prevent the message from being communicated to the party that has potential interest in receiving the message over that medium.


2) simply prohibiting something on the grounds that it is annoying is not censorship. It is not saying that you can't announce your political agenda, it is saying stop yelling at 200 freaking decibels and speak at a normal goddamn volume! It is not censorship to say 'no you can't write your name on my wall in spray paint', because it is not 'don't write your name', but 'don't write on my goddamn wall!'.


Preventing either of these behaviors does not qualify the prevention as censorship under 2Y's definition, in that by reasonable assumption, there is no party interested in receiving the message over that medium.

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:45 pm UTC

you can't declare that none would be interested in hearing what i shout. If humans didn't have a 'Oh me yarm what is that! i wanna look!' mindset, a single accident wouldn't cause 2 hours and 4 miles of silly stupid stop and go shit.
but it does. they'd be interested.

my fellow gang members are interested in seeing my name on the wall. my opposing gang members are as well, so they can know my territory.

the simple moral is...we have 6 billion people (or is it 8 now?). there's going to be SOMEONE interested.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Malice » Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:00 pm UTC

Sarcio wrote:you can't declare that none would be interested in hearing what i shout. If humans didn't have a 'Oh me yarm what is that! i wanna look!' mindset, a single accident wouldn't cause 2 hours and 4 miles of silly stupid stop and go shit.
but it does. they'd be interested.


Actually, that's them being interested in the fact that you're shouting, not what you're shouting. There's a difference.

User avatar
Sarcio
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: i've written something clever here.
Contact:

Postby Sarcio » Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:05 pm UTC

i disagree. i think a case could be made just as much that they are curious as to why i would be shouting in such a way, and thereby curious what it was that i was shouting, as well as curious what in the hell i'm doing.

But this discussion is pointless. To simply rule out that none are interested is really very silly. Pretend, then, that i'm shouting about the nearby factory which is releasing pollutants that have gotten into the water tables. The residents in this area would then be VERY interested in what i had to say.
The simple fact is, interest is not something which can be used as a criteria, because someone will ALWAYS be interested, and a case can be made that someone COULD be interested, and until the information is presented one cannot know whether there will be interest or not. That is, if the government stops me from presenting my information, then clearly it is not censorship, as noone is interested in what they haven't told exists. that makes no sense.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:18 pm UTC

Sarcio wrote:i disagree. i think a case could be made just as much that they are curious as to why i would be shouting in such a way, and thereby curious what it was that i was shouting, as well as curious what in the hell i'm doing.

But this discussion is pointless. To simply rule out that none are interested is really very silly. Pretend, then, that i'm shouting about the nearby factory which is releasing pollutants that have gotten into the water tables. The residents in this area would then be VERY interested in what i had to say.
The simple fact is, interest is not something which can be used as a criteria, because someone will ALWAYS be interested, and a case can be made that someone COULD be interested, and until the information is presented one cannot know whether there will be interest or not. That is, if the government stops me from presenting my information, then clearly it is not censorship, as noone is interested in what they haven't told exists. that makes no sense.


Unless I say I'm not interested. "Post no bills" is a good way to do that, so is using a spam filter.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests