[IP] What the heck is Censorship anyway?
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:51:40 -0500
From: Don Nawrocki <NawrockiD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: What the heck is Censorship anyway?
To: 'Dave Farber' <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Heya Dave,
You probably don't remember me, but you taught me CSE370/371 in my Junior
year at Penn in 1992. Thanks much, BTW, I learned a TON in your class.
So, seeing that there's a bunch of people bandying about the overused term
"censorship", I wanted to shed a little light on what I think that it is,
and challenge some folks to thinking about things that the government might
do with respect to free speech. Just writing this opened up some thoughts,
and I figured that I'd share it, in case others find it useful. Walking
through the use-cases, below, in my own head was quite, enlightening.
Now note, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a layman, and I see these things from
that point of view. I'm just really a stickler for definitions, 'cause I
find when terms are reused, confusion ensues.
That said, here are my definitions... and I'd like to invite any of those
interested to please correct me where I'm wrong.
An "Attack on Freedom of Speech", in my mind, directly relates to actions
that the Government takes to prevent someone or some group from expressing
their opinion, or more generally, exercising their freedom of speech, or if
the Government in some way uses its power to make it more difficult for a
person or group to exercise its freedom of speech. These things should be
defended against, and the government should be constrained to not do these
things.
Censorship, is a specific form of an Attack on Freedom of Speech.
Censorship is when the government directly affects what can be spoken/said,
not through an intermediary. The key word is "directly". Censorship by
definition is an attack on free speech.
Lets test this definition by making some use cases for this (I know, I know,
I'm a use-case oriented kind of guy):
1) The Government sends in troops to a rally where some group is making an
unpopular or in some cases repugnant set of statements publically (e.g. the
Nazi party, etc.)
2) Congress passes a law that says "political ads made by the unpopular
group are to be taxed slightly more than normal ads".
3) The owner of a television station is approached by an unpopular group to
place ads on the station supporting their cause. The group is very willing
to pay extreme amounts of money to get the ads placed. The television
station owner refuses to air the ads or the money.
4) An agent of the Government (not necessarilly a political leader, but an
FBI agent, or a tax collector) approaches the owner of the television
station, and says that he finds the unpopular group repellant, and would
not, in the owner's place, take the ads. The television station owner
refuses to air the ads or the money.
5) An agent of the Government (same as above) approaches the owner of the
television station, and says that he finds the unpopular group repellant,
and that if the television station owner were "smart" he would not take the
ads. The television station owner refuses to air the ads or the money.
6) An agent of the Government (same as above), approaches the owner of the
TV station, and says in effect "If you take these ads, then we're going to
pass a bill next year to make it much harder/expensive for you to do
business". The television station owner refuses to air the ads or the
money.
7) An agent of the Government (same as above), approaches the owner of the
TV station, and says in effect "If you take these ads, then we're going to
fine you 100 million dollars". The television station owner refuses to air
the ads or the money.
8) An agent of the Government (same as above), approaches the owner of the
TV station, and says in effect "I'll give you 100 million dollars not to air
those ads". The television station owner refuses to air the ads of the
unpopular group.
9) A private company, pulls its ads from the television station because they
ran the ads from the unpopular group.
So #1, in my opinion is clearly censorship. The government is directly
suppressing the speech of a group using its power.
Not so sure about #2. Probably is also censorship, as once again, the
government is using its power directly to punish a group for its views, and
is specifically targeting their ability to voice their message. Certainly,
here there is a freedom of speech issue.
#3 In my opinion, not censorship. The Government has no part, and its the
owners station, so he has the right to air and do business with anyone that
he likes.
#4 Is also not censorship. The agent was not acting in the government's
name, and stated his opinion. The Owner happened to do the same.
#5 Things start to get hazy. The government was not directly throwing their
weight at the speech of the group, but rather simply implying that some bad
effect might happen. The implied threat here, in my opinion, makes this an
attack on freedom of speech. However, the owner has every ability to make
the decision to ignore the implied threat. Is this Censorship or an attack
on free speech? Not censorship, but definately an attack on free speech
which should not be allowed.
#6 Same as #5, its just that the threat is better articulated.
#7 Definately Censorship, definately an attack on Freedom of Speech. The
government actively is prohibiting the message of the group by interfering
with the channels and free trade.
#8 Definately Censorship, definately an attack on Freedom of Speech. The
government coercion here just happens to be honey rather than vinegar.
#9 Not censorship, and not an attack on freedom of speech. This is a
private protest by an independant group.
Sound right? Hope this helps someone...
Later,
Don Nawrocki
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named in this transmission. If
you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of
this transmission is strictly prohibited and that you should delete the
contents of this transmission from your system immediately. Any comments or
statements contained in this transmission do not necessarily reflect the
views or position of GSI Commerce, Inc. or its subsidiaries and/or
affiliates.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/