Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 90 04:44:28 GMT
Message-ID: <1990Nov02.044428.2834@looking.on.ca>
References: <1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca> <yTqyR1w163w@dogface>
Keywords: censorship

Censorship does indeed require violence, in the extended sense, where
"don't print that or we will put you in jail" is violence (the
threat thereof) even if no actual violent acts take place because
the repressed publisher complies.

A slightly better definition might be "censorship is the use of force
to suppress information" but I have taken to use the word violence because
it points out the irony of the censor's position.  So many of today's
modern censors are particularly keen on censoring things which "might
tend to encourage violence" or "which desensitize people to violence."

Thus I tend to phrase their arguments (as I see 'em) this way:

"Those who would say things that promote hatred are criminal scum, the
lowest form of life.  They should be reviled, shunned and punished."

"Those who publish material which might generate acceptance of violence
must be stopped.  If they refuse to stop, they should be jailed and
have their property confiscated.  If they refuse to be jailed, they
should be taken bodily or at gunpoint.  If they still refuse
or try to escape, they should be shot and killed."

Somehow, the censors don't see the irony of the above statements...
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
