Words mean things.

It is reasonable to use the word censorship when it applies only to governments, because its meaning will remain clear. However, using the word when you are referring to another entity becomes confusing; just look at the debate throughout this topic. There is no overwhelming consesus in this forum that the the word refers strictly to government or authoritative bodies. The proof that it is NOT the correct word to use lies solely in the fact that it created confusion among the readers.

If one wishes to be a good communicator of ideas (and please, should we not all strive to do so?) then it is one's responsibility to choose thier words wisely, in order to pervey the intended meaning; unless of course your intent is to stimulate confusing thought. And, even then, this would be a sophmoric trick. Language is abused by those with an agenda. Do you not see it, when a conservative politian or noodle-waving liberal uses a word out of context, only to incite anger or action through connotation?

Ask yourself these questions: shouldn't you use the best possible word, one that undoubtably says what you want it to say? Why use a word that cannot clearly convey its intended meaning? When you sit down to author a post, do you think through what you're saying before submitting?

As performers, we exercise this concept to refine our acts. "Pick any card." Was 'pick' the best word to use? How about "Point to any card," or "Remove any card?" Which phrase conveys the best meaning to our audience?

Jesse

Jesse

Jesse,
I will not disagree. However, since the word censorship is not to be used, what word would you suggest?
I own a newspaper.
I am not a government. I am not a representative of a government.
When my editors do not allow something to be printed, what are they doing?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Peace,
Parson

Parson, they are selectivly ommiting.

Hey EDH,
Thanks for the clarification.
Earlier in my life, I honestly thought that organizations other than governments could apply censorship.
Well, you learn something new every day.
Peace,
Parson

" Censorship normally refers to a limitation through the use of coercion of some one's expression." Coercion can be involved but not necessarily. A government censor going through soldier's mail and striking out passages in letters about his troop's locations or whatever, is censoring by any definition, but there is no coercion at all.

"When my editors do not allow something to be printed, what are they doing?"

The proper term is "editing." It is done every day at every newspaper and every television station. Someone who does not like what has been edited, might mischaracterize it by calling it "censorship" but that does not make it so. Which reminds me of the old Abe Lincoln story about when he asked a child "If you call that dog's tail a 'leg' then how many legs does that dog have?"

The child replied, "Five."

"No son. Four. Calling the tail 'a leg' does not make it a leg."

But what if a distribution outlet like Buissness Wire will not issue the news to the outlets becouse they do not like it or their larger clients do not?

(Parson knows how much content come from these people.)

It is in my opinion how the media can be controlled by private organisations.

That is what then?

Jack

H.O.A_X

"The Media" in general, is made up of private organizations. As such, they are free to do whatever the hell they want to do. You have freedom of speech, yes, but that freedom does not mean you can be granted 10 minutes in primetime on a major broadcast network to spout on about whatever you want.

If I submit something to business wire claiming that the board of directors of Google is made up of pedophiles, is it censorship if they don't distribute it? No, it's just a business decision.

I think editing is the best term. Everyone would understand the meaning. It is not necessarily a good or bad connotation, and certainly conveys the correct meaning. Censorship would convey a negative meaning, as though your editors are lock-step rigid authoritarians, which I am sure they are not. The word censorship has been so misused that it literally has lost its effectiveness.

I love words! I wish I knew more. Think of the power that the right word in the right place has in your magic act!

But we really are digressing from the original post, which was a bit cryptic. I would like to hear back from ALEX for clarification.

RLFrame. I disagree about the nature of coercion. Perhaps we can both agree to a phrase such as "through the use of power, or authority" which is probably more accurate (though I'm still not convinced that coercion is involved).

My main point is that most people in this thread are using "censorship" as an evaluative term: i.e. it's only censorship if I have a problem with it.

Editors--at least the good ones--exercise virtuous censorship. That is, they restrict what you can say for defensible reasons.

Is it censorship that schoolchildren are not permitted to write the f-word in their essays? I suppose so, but not many people disagree with such a policy, so it doesn't get called censorship very often.

John

This entire debate has been about the meaning of "censor."
I have been corrected numerous times for pointing to the definition of censor and censorship.
A brief visit to any library or a short googling of dictionaries will clearly point out that censorship is not restricted to government agencies.
For example, Princeton's Wordnet defines censor as follows:
censor

n : a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or politically unacceptable v 1: forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper) [syn: ban] 2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This magazine is censored by the government"

Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law...
cen·sor
Function: transitive verb
: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language...


1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.

At my newspaper, we DO censor some writings and we do edit some writings. The two are, in my mind totally different.
It really does not bother me for someone to tell me that I am wrong. My wife does it all the time.
But, as far as this topic is concerned, I would appreciate any evidential justification for saying that the meaning of censor or censorship is different from accepted dictionaries.

Of course, anyone who says that private places have the right and authoity to make rules and regulations concerning their business is absolutely correct.
But that has little or nothing to do with this particular discussion.
Peace,
Parson

Onebark wrote:-



Erm - could you repeat that again please?....

Well said, Parson.

But you needen't be corrected, because you are not wrong. I suppose my ramblings were directed more towards the original topic post (and I have been accused of rambling by my wife LOL). That post created some confusion. I belive YOUR use of the word 'censorship' conveys its intended meaning to the casual reader, don't you?

That's it! I am pushing the "report this post" button! This whole thread is an off topic, duplicate post of profane subjects with some exposure and flaming not to mention those Avatars. And I am sure if violates some other rules as well.

RLF,

"1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals."

Not to get picky about this but Two of the definitions mention "official" including the last one which is where the word came from. As to the first definition, even the AP or the New York times cannot suppress a book or a movie that they do not agree with. Who but a governement official could truly supress a book or a movie on any type of scale?

Some of you may be right that censorship could could apply to private individuals in a position of power, but I still think (because of this clear tie to government officials and agencies)it is confusing in that context, that there are more accurate wordings available, and that in the context of a message board, 'censorship,' because of the unfair/negative stigma attached to the word, is not the right word at all.