RK emerged from his lonely exile to comment that censorship is suppression of IDEAS.
I submit that this is only one form of censorship. When it comes to ideas about politics or religion, the U.S. Constitution seems to oppose this form. "Freedom of press", according to my meager and scanty reading of the Federalist Papers and other documents of the Founding, guarantees all political ideas an airing. Whether any one wants to hear, of course, is up to them. (No question of religious ideas: we freaky faith-based folks are allowed to print, read and sell whatever screwy scriptures we can scrape up.)
Let's not allow the general Wikipedian distaste for (or outrage at) censorship blind us to what is really is, or is not.
When a junior high school library decides not to shelve Lady Chatterly's Lover (or The Story of O), that is most definitely censorship. Whether you think pubescent students should be "shielded" from sexual texts or not, the ACT of shielding them has a name, and it's called "censorship".
Complying with local, regional or national laws which forbid certain expressions or depictions is also censorship. If we want to send a print edition to "strait-laced" countries, such as Communist China (or possibly even Uganda), we will have to respect their laws - or try smuggling in some CDs instead. I want no part of smuggling (the legal liability is too high).
Masking censorship by calling it "editorial decisions" sounds timid at best. Why not call a spade a spade?
Uncle Ed
P.S. Attagirl, Anthere!
-----Original Message----- From: Tom Haws [mailto:hawstom@sprintmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:45 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] censorship and guidelines
Tony Mobily IMAP wrote:
I understand you were making a point, and I also understand I am the new kid in the block. However, I would like to suggest that such a crude list could be avoided without weakening your point.
If not, I don't think I will last very long in this mailing list.
Thank you for saying that, Tony.
Tom Haws
OK, Uncle Ed. I will try it.
At Wikipedia we practice censorship!!!!!! We admit it!
You know, that did kind of feel liberating. :-D
Tom Haws "And [the angel] said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things."
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:30:08PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
RK emerged from his lonely exile to comment that censorship is suppression of IDEAS.
[snip]
When a junior high school library decides not to shelve Lady Chatterly's Lover (or The Story of O), that is most definitely censorship. Whether you think pubescent students should be "shielded" from sexual texts or not, the ACT of shielding them has a name, and it's called "censorship".
While I can understand both definitions of the word "censorship", I think it is far more useful to draw the distinction around the type of behavior that seeks to suppress ideas or deny points of view a public hearing, as opposed to that which simply refuses to support particular points of view.
For instance, it would be absurd (it seems to me) to state that when I choose to buy novels by Neal Stephenson and not to buy novels by Stephen King that I am "censoring" King by not supporting his work, granting it space on my bookshelf, or recommending it to my friends. To define "censorship" this broadly makes the term meaningless.
Censorship, it seems to me, needs to be defined in terms of a space of discourse, and an act of intrusion upon it. There have to be speakers who want to speak, listeners who want to listen, and an act which stifles the speech for the purpose of keeping it from being heard by those who would choose to hear.
(Government schools are such a bad example, and so frequently cited, precisely because they come already politicized. They are supported with taxpayer funds which people do not have the choice to withhold; everyone is compelled to underwrite whatever the schools teach.
That is why people get so agitated when government schools teach things they disapprove of -- not just because *someone* is teaching sex or religion or whatever, but because it's being done with *our money* and, in a republic, with the presumption of the "consent of the governed". When than consent has *not* really been given, people get indignant at the presumption.
Wikipedia has none of those problems.)
Complying with local, regional or national laws which forbid certain expressions or depictions is also censorship. If we want to send a print edition to "strait-laced" countries, such as Communist China (or possibly even Uganda), we will have to respect their laws - or try smuggling in some CDs instead. I want no part of smuggling (the legal liability is too high).
Wikipedia has a structural commitment to the idea that open public collaboration, with a focus on neutrality, can generate value and can approximate truth. Wherever this idea or its practice is forbidden, Wikipedia is by necessity subversive and illegal.
There's no getting around that. If there is a regime under which NPOV is illegal because (let's say) all credit must be given to the Great Leader, then Wikipedia must either fail to propagate into that regime, or else defy the laws of that regime. It cannot propagate into that regime without either breaking the law or becoming anti-Wikipedia.
Where the law says we must lie, we simply must not go unless we are willing to break the law. If we go there and follow the law by lying, then we have destroyed what we went there to build.
Masking censorship by calling it "editorial decisions" sounds timid at best. Why not call a spade a spade?
What we have -is- a spade. It makes no sense to call a perfectly innocent spade by the name of a sword that has brought untold death and mutilation to the world.
Karl A. Krueger a écrit:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:30:08PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
RK emerged from his lonely exile to comment that censorship is suppression of IDEAS.
[snip]
When a junior high school library decides not to shelve Lady Chatterly's Lover (or The Story of O), that is most definitely censorship. Whether you think pubescent students should be "shielded" from sexual texts or not, the ACT of shielding them has a name, and it's called "censorship".
While I can understand both definitions of the word "censorship", I think it is far more useful to draw the distinction around the type of behavior that seeks to suppress ideas or deny points of view a public hearing, as opposed to that which simply refuses to support particular points of view.
For instance, it would be absurd (it seems to me) to state that when I choose to buy novels by Neal Stephenson and not to buy novels by Stephen King that I am "censoring" King by not supporting his work, granting it space on my bookshelf, or recommending it to my friends. To define "censorship" this broadly makes the term meaningless.
Censorship, it seems to me, needs to be defined in terms of a space of discourse, and an act of intrusion upon it. There have to be speakers who want to speak, listeners who want to listen, and an act which stifles the speech for the purpose of keeping it from being heard by those who would choose to hear.
(Government schools are such a bad example, and so frequently cited, precisely because they come already politicized. They are supported with taxpayer funds which people do not have the choice to withhold; everyone is compelled to underwrite whatever the schools teach.
That is why people get so agitated when government schools teach things they disapprove of -- not just because *someone* is teaching sex or religion or whatever, but because it's being done with *our money* and, in a republic, with the presumption of the "consent of the governed". When than consent has *not* really been given, people get indignant at the presumption.
Wikipedia has none of those problems.)
unless.... unless we start making deals with government (by accepting their offering of cash) or with educational system (by sharing grants to develop certain things to them).
Then, if you add up the cases where people provide by direct individual donations (which makes them feel ownership in a certain sense) and the realisation the project is financed indirectly with their taxes...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:51:02 -0500, Karl A. Krueger kkrueger@whoi.edu wrote:
[snip] On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:30:08PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
[snip] Complying with local, regional or national laws which forbid certain expressions or depictions is also censorship. If we want to send a print edition to "strait-laced" countries, such as Communist China (or possibly even Uganda), we will have to respect their laws - or try smuggling in some CDs instead. I want no part of smuggling (the legal liability is too high).
Wikipedia has a structural commitment to the idea that open public collaboration, with a focus on neutrality, can generate value and can approximate truth. Wherever this idea or its practice is forbidden, Wikipedia is by necessity subversive and illegal.
There's no getting around that. If there is a regime under which NPOV is illegal because (let's say) all credit must be given to the Great Leader, then Wikipedia must either fail to propagate into that regime, or else defy the laws of that regime. It cannot propagate into that regime without either breaking the law or becoming anti-Wikipedia.
Where the law says we must lie, we simply must not go unless we are willing to break the law. If we go there and follow the law by lying, then we have destroyed what we went there to build.
Is removing text or an image due to copyright violation "lying"? Some uses of copyright material violates the law in the US (and elsewhere). Removing such material could often be withholding information, especially in the case of images. Do we defy the US law? We may try to justify it under fair use; we may assume a generous interpretation of the law, but if Wikipedia's stance is to outright defy US copyright law, then there is a whole lot of people who will be surprised and dismayed.
If there is a law in country xyz that says that photographs of child pornography are illegal, then will we include them anyway? Oh wait, isn't that true in some US states? Is it Wikipedia's stance to outright defy those laws? If not, why not? Isn't this *exactly* what you are saying we should do?
-- Rich Holton
en.wikipedia:User:Rholton
Wikipedia is global and universal, and somebody will always be censored. That is simply the plain reality. There are potential authors, readers, and subjects that the consensus of the Wikipedia community simple does not allow to come together. This is, if you will, censorship.
Tom Haws "And [the angel] said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things."
Poor, Edmund W said:
When a junior high school library decides not to shelve Lady Chatterly's Lover (or The Story of O), that is most definitely censorship.
...
Complying with local, regional or national laws which forbid certain expressions or depictions is also censorship.
...
Masking censorship by calling it "editorial decisions" sounds timid at best. Why not call a spade a spade?
Absolutely. Why is this word so taboo? We all censor.