MarsAtlas said:
If I've been censored from publishing a book because of it's content, I could still TALK about it, but I've still been censored.
If you've been censored from publishing a book you cannot publish it and any attempts to publish it yourself would result in the government coming to you and impose penalties upon you, some as severe as imprisonment. Cartoon Network can publish the original version of the scene in question. They chose not to, which is their freedom as a business.
Ok, I'm noting a trend here where you just seem to arbitrarily start and stop using certain words. Is this just things getting crossed, or are you intentionally trying to switch around contexts?
If my book, which is a written and attempted publish work, was censored, and then I go to TALK about the content of the book, such as to my friends, or on a show or some such, those are two entirely different things. You're correct, if I attempted to publish my book anyways, I'd probably face some kind of repercussion. But I thought your entire point was people could still talk about the show even though the show itself had been censored. You can't use that as a counter argument, and then when I use the exact same situation to point out that it's still censorship, act like it's different.
And as has been stated several times now. "Censorship" is not inheriently bad. I think it's fine that Cartoon Network would be disenclined to put Bible Black on their network. But the suppression of expression is, BY DEFINITION, censorship. Not "evil". Not "bad". Not "needs to be stopped". Merely censorship.
What you describe as "censorship" is the most basic filter possible. Saying that is censorship is like saying its censorship for me to not my hand on a hot stove. This definition of censorship you're purporting is so broad and nebulous that it has no practical application of any kind. Its useless. Worst than useless its insulting to victims of actual censorship and the ongoing struggles of those who face it because people still can't freely express certain words, ideas and images in developed nations like the UK, let alone the censorship of being thrown into a labour camp to be a work slave for saying something negative about the government in China.
Woah, woah. *I'm* purporting? Really? Ok, clearly you're not using the same definitions as me, so fair enough. Lets clear that up before we continue.
https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship
An except right from the top:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
Further, the definition of censorship:
"The system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship]
The system or practice of censoring, as enacted by a censor. So what a 'censor'?
"A person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc." [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring]
So the actual definition is the practice of someone(or a large body) examining books, movies, letters and thus the expressions or actions or ideas of a peice of content and removing things - obviously up to, and including, the entirety of the work.
Some more examples just so we can affirm I'm not cherry picking:
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship
http://www.yourdictionary.com/censorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=censorship+definition
I'll keep using words as their definitions actually apply, thanks. If using words by what they actually are defined by is "devaluing" then language is dead.
Okay then. Hey, why are you censoring yourself by posting on an internet forum instead of blowing all of your money on hookers and blow? Why are you censoring yourself by not strapping yourself onto a rocket to the ISS? Why are you censoring yourself by not setting your pubic hair on fire in the St. Patrick's Day parade?
See how useless the word becomes when you call any exercise of basic critical thought censorship?
You attempting to attach physical assault to 'censorship' doesn't really do anything, because yeah, that's censorship too. But censorship does not, itself, imply a LITERAL denial of speech. It is the suppression of spreading ideas, actions or thoughts.
So you agree that me supressing myself by not sticking my genitals in every single hole in the sidewalk is censorship.
Would you agree that such a broad and vague definition that allows for somebody choosing to not stick their dick in literally everything they can is a useless definition with no useful application in communication?
Well...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suppress
By definition, sure, you're self-censoring on moralistic grounds by suppressing the activity of boning everything you can see.
However, just because YOU dislike a word being used by the very definition that it operates under doesn't mean anyone else has this problem.
You're still conflating people using the term with it being bad in all contexts. You need to stop thinking like that because it's completely irrational. Censorship, as a function, is merely a tool. A tool to limit expression of actions, thoughts or ideas. As has been stated several times now, it isn't inheriently bad or evil. Oftentimes, censorship is a pretty great thing, like tossing people in jail for "expressing themselves" via serial murders.
It's society's job to decide when an act of censorship is a bad thing. All I'm arguing about is people claiming this sort of thing "isn't censorship". Because it absolutely is.
If someone is preventing you from expressing an idea, thought or action, then BY DEFINITION it is censorship.
So who is censoring Cartoon Network if its their own choice of self-expression to broadcast or not broadcast something?
Well, quite obviously, the UK side of the Cartoon Network channel is censoring the content. Cartoon Network UK does not act as an exclusive presentation element for the creators of the show. The fact that one network paid for the show and presented it in full and the other network decided to cut content - ostensibly because it may offend some people's sensibilities - is the definition of censorship, as I've detailed above.
As for the Shining bit, given that the scene was presented, just a particular variant of it, it wouldn't, by definition, be censorship. The idea of the scene was conveyed in full.
Every single cut is a unique expression. Thats the whole reason people do more than one take - because every tiniest little change is a change in how the script is expressed. Every single take is an individual expression. If you're going to purport that restraint of individual expression to only that which expresses what you intend to express is censorship then yes, its censorship not to include each and every single take in the final product.
Well, clearly Stanley Kubrick's intent was the final cut. He was a known perfecionist, so if that's what made it into the final cut, then that is what aligned with his vision. However, you could theoretically make a case that Kubrick was blocking the acting efforts of Nickleson.
So, as stated, several times, BY DEFINITION, the suppression - preventing the presentation or dissemination of - an action, idea or expression, is censorship. That's what the word means. That's what it is.
And nothing is preventing Cartoon Network from dissemination anything. Its their choice to do what they will with their stuff. If you're going to say that its censorship then its censorship that I don't disseminate my galcock in every crack and crevice in the sidewalk.
You do realize that cartoon network is the entity blocking dissemination. Right? The shows creators created a show, and then a particular branch of the network apparently deigned the content problematic and cut it. Censorship.
Well, given that my bills won't pay for themselves in the MONTHS it would take to weave through the court system, I'm still SOL, have no money and when I have to declare bankruptcy to stave off collections for all those bills I can't pay, my credit score would be bottomed out making it difficult to get loans for cars and houses and the like.
Then make more money. Maybe take out a loan. Get people to donate to your cause. Its not the government's job to make sure that you have enough money to deal with the consequences of every single you get yourself into. If you can't do that then, well, live in a box. Or alternatively either hire a cheaper lawyer, get a free lawyer or represent yourself. Those are all valid options, after all.
Excellent counter arguments to how corporations can use the legal system to censor someone they don't like. "Get richer".
And even then, you ignore the fact that while I MIGHT be able to recoup the damages, it was still a corperation abusing the legal system in order to cripple my livelyhood because of something I said.
If you can't keep up with the paperwork that isn't the company's fault. Maybe instead try to push for government reform when it comes to these sort of lawsuits to make it simpler. They're not obligated to go easy on you. In fact, forcing them to do that would being infringing on their ability to defend themselves in court.
It costs money just for court processing. The very act of someone going "I'm suing you" and filing their end of the paperwork to kick it into motion ensures that I have to pay money for legal fees.
If I wouldn't be able to pay for that, and as in the example, this could financially ruin me because someone filed a bit of paperwork that was chump change to them, but destructive to me, then that threat could stop me from saying something.
Which is censorship. As such, corporations can, indeed, censor people.
Put another way, they would be using the legal system(or threat of it) to prevent me from continuing to say what I'm saying.
Its no more their fault that the system is open to abuse than it is your fault. Don't blame them for something that isn't them.
I never blamed them for the system. But it is a system that could be used to stifle speech or expression they dislike. That was the entire point of the hypothetical.
