Censorship/IADiscussion
From iA wiki
Censorship iA Discussion
The following was a discussion concerning Censorship between active iA writers. Having grown too large for the /Talk page, it was moved here.
This is another one of those things that bugs me. Companies can't censor things. Only the government can censor things. Complaining about media companies "censoring" content is a complete red herring. A company has every right to choose what it will and won't say, and what it will and won't allow to be broadcast through its channels. If Wal-Mart want to "censor" a CD with foul language, i couldn't care less - it's still perfectly legal to obtain that CD through other channels. The only real censorship is when the government makes laws restricting what companies and individuals can and can't broadcast or say... that's the real danger. -- Amw
- I thought of this arguement but then I realized the DMCA is a government-created document.
- Instead, how about this one: by not having their CDs available through the most profitable company in the world (Wal Mart), many artists see their sales suffer. This type of corporate censorship is quite powerful. And not for just using bad language or adult themes - Cheryl Crow critisized the sales of guns in a supermarket and was banned.
- Government created, eh? Well, maybe government authorized, but I highly doubt that some corporate lawyers didn't have their hands in that one. crtn
- If one asks another one to kill individual X, did that one kill individual X? If one corporation lobbied with the government for a law (which leads to less freedom), did that corporation censor? Now, my view of the government which matters in the context is that it is (just) an execution service of and for the people. Point is though, some people have some very high influence on that service. Now, guess who that might be? It seems this aspect is left out in your view while this easily is able to result in a more pragmatic point of view. -- dpi
I agree that it can be powerful, particularly in the case of huge corporations like Wal-Mart, but that doesn't make it censorship. Until i am thrown in jail for speaking my mind in public i won't consider myself censored. For example, i wouldn't "censored" if Erik came over and told me to quit talking about X or Y issue on this Wiki. Why? It's his Wiki and if he doesn't want me to say something i still have the freedom to go somewhere else and say it. To me censorship is about taking away freedoms you originally had, it's not about taking away priveleges that were explicitly granted. -- Amw
- What word would you use for this medium-level censorship? Maybe like "slapped"? "Monkey knife fight"? I see where you're going but I think putting people out of business because you disagree with what they say artistically is very much censorship. Moreover, corporations as a whole are far more powerful than government. Webfork
Corporate bullying, perhaps? -- Amw
- I see what you're saying about Erik telling you what to do - that is an over zealous use of the word "censorship." But you have other wikis that you can go to and talk about whatever you want. With the Wal-Mart example, because they are so huge, it amounts to attacks on our constitutional rights of protected speech. A company can decide not to not sell any product it wants. But to remove a product that's selling quite well from a popular artist? For being critical of them? I'd say that amounts to censorship. If it was a smaller music chain like Tower Records or something, then maybe. Webfork
- "It's his Wiki and if he doesn't want me to say something i still have the freedom to go somewhere else and say it". Uhh. What if it's IRL? Would you say then: you have the possibility to go to country X and say it there? Actually, one could just use this Wiki software (GPL) and fork it's content (Public Domain). Result = possibility to decentralize; results in less hierarchy because appeal to force / argumentum ad baculum cannot be effectively used (either by site owener, 3rd parties like German government; you name it). -- dpi.
