| Author |
Message |
|
| marantzo |
 Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:45 pm |
 |
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: “You'd ban abortion, not being a woman and never having to make that decision for whatever reason…”
What? Who the fuck are you talking to and/or about?
I was referring to joe in that post, not you. That had the 'skewed' comment too.
Dictionary definition:
censor [L.from censere to tax, to appraise] n. A Roman officer who registered the property of the citizens, imposed taxesand watched over manners and morals; a public officer appointed to examine books, plays, etc. before they are pubished to see that they contained nothing imoral seditious or offensive; a public servant whose duty it is in war-time to see that nothing is published, or passesthrough the post, that might give information to the enemy; (Psych.) the super-ego, an unconscious mechanism in the mind that excludes disturbing factors from the conscious; one given to reproof or censure of other people; (Univ.) officials whom issue licences, etc. v.t. To control any sort of publication in this way; to expurgate or delete objectionable matter from. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:48 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| It's not a question of rubes and hicks. It's a question of the kinds of sophisticated tactics the radical right uses to forward their agenda. They put an ethical spin on everything and ask people to let their conscience be their guide. Oftentimes, that's the much-vaunted "common sense" juries are always taught to rely on, or in other words, emotional responses--how does a reasonable person act, and then identifying your client or agenda as that reasonable person who isn't too different from your juror. Law, however, often goes against emotional givens to create a deliberate (intellectual) balance of interests. No wonder intellectuals are always attacked by fascists. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: but it cannot delete posts that are not in violation of decency laws. That IS censorship.
Yes it is. The Times is the official in this instance and they are censoring what is in there realm. It is not an attack on free speech, which I was talking about, because they aren't restricting your free speech. If you think free speech is the right to write whatever you want in someone else's publication then you have a different meaning of the phrase than I do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:56 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| It is protected free speech if the newspaper gives you space. The NYT clearly did that. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Marilyn, the NYT isn't Hyde Park. It's a private organ. It gives you access within its own rules. Let's be logical. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| I'm not sure how laws are shaping up around the Internet, but I do know that the NY Times would protect its own free-speech rights if an article appearing on its Web site were suppressed or attacked. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:11 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| Frankly, Marantz, your sanctification of private enterprise has me a bit worried... |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| burritoboy |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Location: Chicago
|
"Marilyn[/b], the NYT isn't Hyde Park. It's a private organ. It gives you access within its own rules. Let's be logical."
Actually, no corporation is simply a private organ. Corporations are, by definition, a combined public / private institutional form. Early ones were explicitly allowed only if they benefitted the public good, as well as private goods. This early understanding of the corporation only changed after states started allowing almost anything to incorporate at the end of the nineteenth century. The corporation isn't something written into stone.
On a grander level (for firms that aren't corporations), we can regulate them in any number of ways (or infinite ways, possibly). It's only our current understanding that "freedom of speech" = "freedom to utilize those modes of speech which you own". I.E. you are allowed to speak freely on land you own, or on public land. You are allowed to use a telephone line you rented. You are allowed to use the multi-media conglomerate you know to...... whoops, you don't own a multi-media conglomerate? Too bad for you! (and if you have neither land which you own, nor easy access to public land.........again, too bad for you.)
Anyways, the bounds of a firm (or any organization) isn't some natural law created in the primordial ooze. The firm's bounds are always a product of law, societal understanding, history, conflict with other organizational rivals and so on. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:26 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mr. Brownstone |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 2450
|
Lookit burritoboy whup that ass.
Marantz, perhaps we need to come up with a better term for the Kentucky theatre owner's action than "censorship."
How would you describe his action?
I arrived at censorship due to my understanding of the word and lack of another being available to my intellect. |
_________________
"My name is Gunnery Sergeant Major Highway. And I have drunk more beer, pissed more blood, banged more quiff and knocked more skulls than all you numbnuts put together." - Clint Eastwood, Heartbreak Ridge |
|
| Back to top |
|
| yambu |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:40 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
Marilyn wrote: It is protected free speech if the newspaper gives you space. The NYT clearly did that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:56 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| No, I wasn't suggesting that they had to publish letters they received. However, I think it might be a gray area if they started tampering with publications they did allow through the Internet. I'm curious as to how the law might shape up in this area. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:00 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Marilyn,
The difficulty I see with your postion is that everyone on the forums signs an agreement about acceptable and unacceptable speech and about posts. When we post something that crosses the line, we have essentially violated our part of the agreement that our posts are allowed as long as they meet certain criteria, and therefore they have a right to remove said post. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:02 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| IF it violated regulations. I don't remember agreeing to have "off topic" posts deleted, which is what they started to do after they killed the film forums and insisted we post what they wanted us to post. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marilyn wrote: I'm not sure how laws are shaping up around the Internet, but I do know that the NY Times would protect its own free-speech rights if an article appearing on its Web site were suppressed or attacked.
Yes they would. Because that would be government interfering in a free press, unconstitutional. Do you think that your comments on the NYT Forum are accorded the same protection.
I'm not saying that I agree with their censorship, all I'm saying is that in that venue they have the authority to do it. The government does not have the authority to interfere with a free press. But there are 'screaming fire in a crowded theatre' exceptions.
Quote: Anyways, the bounds of a firm (or any organization) isn't some natural law created in the primordial ooze. The firm's bounds are always a product of law, societal understanding, history, conflict with other organizational rivals and so on.
True. And this has nothing to do with allowing posts on their forums that they don't want to.
Tim, I'd call the theatre owner someone who is restricting anyone from seeing a Jane Fonda movie in his theatre. I only read the very first part of the article so I didn't know that he refused to show Farenheit 9/11 also, but it certainly doesn't surprise me. It's pretty obvious what his politics are. I was going to suggest much earlier that he may even be a Democrat who was just upset about that incident because of his involvement. Good thing I didn't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
