Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Editorial control is what we do everyday in deciding what stays in our out. Censoring would be to delete all mention of a specific item including systematically deleting any reference or access to the subject matter. Censorship is not continuing to provide easy access to information or images while not forcing it on everyone. Read Farenheit 451 for (albiet extreme) real censorship - or other efforts in the past to systemically burn books to remove them from the library and prevent all access. Limiting access is often called censorship but is not.
What you are pointing to are the different levels of censorship. This discussion may involve a proposal of low-level censorship but it is censorship none the less.
If you use the word "censorship" so broadly, you rob it of genuine meaning. When we correct a grammatical error, are we censoring the error? When we decide that a picture of George Washington goes on the George Washington page, rather than the Thomas Jefferson page, are we censoring?
We make editorial judgments all the time, on all kinds of things. Should we put a scandal about a politician high in the article or further down? Should we show a picture at the top of the page, or the bottom? Should we show a picture directly or via a link?
If all of those things are censorship, then censorship doesn't sound so bad after all.
I don't care for this argument for another reason. Many of us who propose putting the image on a link are literally prepared to risk our lives to fight censorship, should be become necessary. We are extremely opposed to censorship. Calling us censors is a "low blow" then, because it causes us to fear that we have done something terribly out of line with our own principles.
This is why I think it is important to move this debate away from questions of "censorship" -- which is manifestly is not -- and towards "quality of presentation of information".
--Jimbo