It's still censorship. By definition.BabySinclair said:Actually, the knowledgeable sales, purchasing, and distribution of stolen goods is already illegal. Wikileaks knowingly bought and then distributed stolen "goods." Shutting them down is akin to confiscating the stolen property. This is why the censorship argument fails. Assange openly admitted to purchasing stolen goods and not alerting authorities to the sellers, both of which were criminal acts. He was effectively participating in political espionage and the US had the right to prevent that information from being released.Vegosiux said:Yes, I understand that, but that doesn't make it "not censorship". And as long as a state argues "interests of national security" as the reason for taking a site down, that's pretty much that, because it falls under state sovereignty. Sure you can be critical of it, but you don't really have any grounds to make them stop doing it.twistedmic said:Wikileaks (at least) was a different matter. Wikileaks was dealing with and exposing stolen classified material, regardless of the damage that such information could have caused.
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."
Not allowing porn on TV at 2PM is "censorship". Censorship does not necessarily have a malicious intent, but it is a practice of disallowing communication and expression in some forms, while the reasons for it are very very varied, some more and some less scrupulous.
The main problem is that it's become some kind of a buzz word that has to necessarily carry a negative context, but that's not the fault of the word nor its definition, but of the people who perpetuate such a false perspective.
Or to put it differently, censorship is a tool that can be used for good or bad, and it shouldn't be called bad by default just because it happens to be used in a bad fashion in several cases.