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 20:23:30 GMT
Message-ID: <1990Nov02.202330.21517@looking.on.ca>
References: <1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca> <yTqyR1w163w@dogface> <1990Nov02.044428.2834@looking.on.ca> <1990Nov2.141012.25200@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Keywords: censorship

In article <1990Nov2.141012.25200@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>  In the public sector, plus private universities, censorship can be
>done by cutting off funding or threatening to cut off funding.  The
>recent flap about the NEA fits under this heading.  I don't see how
>this type of censorship fits the "violence" description in any way.

Easy.  It isn't censorship.   Censorship is one way to control information.
It is the most evil way.  It is *not* the only way, and not the only evil
way.

The NEA's riders about obscenity are not censorship.  "Obscene" are is
not being suppressed.  It is simply not being encouraged.   This might
be called "moralizing."   I agree that governments should not do it.  They
should not render value judgements on art and obscenity.

There are two different acts here:

	a) Giving out a pool of money, but refusing to give it out to
		certain parties based on value judgements like "obscenity"

	b) Actively hunting down publishers of material which disagrees with
		official value judgements and imprisoning them.

How can you even compare these two acts?  They are different by orders of
magnitude.   These two things do not deserve the same word.  (Yes, there
is an argument that since the pool of money was coerced from taxpayers
by force, that force was involved.  But that sidesteps the main point.  I
think everybody can see the difference between the two acts above.)


The only other application of the word censorship that I accept is when
applied to quasi-governmental institutions.   Where the quasi-government
says, "Leave this institution unless you follow these restrictions on
expression."   Particularly when those who joined the institution did so
without an expection of such restrictions.

Thus, when a University (which is expected to be a bastion of free
expression) says 'don't say XXX or you will be expelled,' that can be
considered censorship, even though no violence is allowed.  On the other
hand, if an employer says, "Don't run around denouncing our products or
you will be fired," that is not censorship, since such a restriction is
to be reasonably expected when you are hired.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
