The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

[Gorrath]

I am honestly kinda shocked Bob would come down as the Parental Advisory, MPAA, and the bloody Comic code as not being censorship.

Maybe Bob's next video can be about Fredric Wertham and how nothing bad came out of that.

Good point about the Comic Code, but that was industry imposed self-censorship. Right? But a discussion about self-censorship, industry standards, and crowdrage censorship is probably a video itself.

That's the biggest issue I took with Bob's video honestly. He defines censorship in a very narrow way here to make his point. He claims that in common parlance, censorship simply refers to what a government imposes, but I can't agree with that at all. IN common parlance, censorship includes several variations, including the government sort but also including self-censorship, industry censorship, ect.

The Dixie Chicks were not censored, they were buffeted by market forces including what happened with advertisers. However, convincing publishers that certain depictions are offensive and therefore should not be allowed in the games they publish VERY MUCH IS censorship. This isn't always a bad thing of course, especially when we have an ethical issue at stake. Bob's claim that pushing for those in charge to put creative limits on games so as to get rid of things he finds "offensive" is somehow not a push for censorship is just straight up not correct. Getting someone, or a company, or a whole industry to self-police certain depictions or ideas is pushing for those groups or individuals to censor themselves.

Long and short of it is, Bob's only right if you buy his definition of censorship and that definition's very limited scope. I don't. The CCA is just the sort of example that shows how Bob's definition here is inadequate.

 

[F.Dubois]

That's the biggest issue I took with Bob's video honestly. He defines censorship in a very narrow way here to make his point. He claims that in common parlance, censorship simply refers to what a government imposes, but I can't agree with that at all. IN common parlance, censorship includes several variations, including the government sort but also including self-censorship, industry censorship, ect.

It falls short of realizing the soft power of governments and establishment societies to exert "not-censorship" over intellectual properties. Your country doesn't censor but you can kiss commercial viability goodby if they give you a rating prohibiting the sale to the target demographic? You self-censor and the government/establishment gets to enforce what they wanted anyway.

There is a whole lot to government censorship that this "big picture" doesn't get, maybe things are different in the US but I hardly think so considering that you can not broadcast certain words on public television lest you want the FCC to reprimand you.

 

[the7ofswords]

So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Yeah, this is what drives me nuts. A better way to say this would be to say that what happened to the Dixie Chicks absolutely was censorship, but that it just wasn't government censorship, and therefore didn't fall under First Amendment protection.

What people like Mr. Chipman here, or Jim Sterling or Anita Sarkeesian are doing is not censorship of any kind?it's media and cultural criticism. The rest of the video actually does explain that, of course, but still ... How about rather than change the meaning of the word "censor" to fit the dopey, single-purpose (and broadly incorrect) usage to which it has fallen prey, we educate people to understand the difference?

Sorry?just had to get that off my chest. Great video, otherwise!

You see that's were Bob was saying you get into the technical and practical definitions of the word. Under the technical dictionary definition, yes you could call that censorship, but under the practical common use (and when I say "common use" I mean use by anyone who understands that an opinion expressed against something they don't like is not censorship) definition, it really isn't. Sure it was an unjust backlash against an unpopular opinion, but can't really be called censorship.

My point is that this is not a case of "technical" vs. "practical" definitions, so much as "actual" vs. "frequently misunderstood and incorrect" definitions. What country radio stations did was remove songs they had previously played from their rotation because they didn't like what the artists in question said. That is censorship, plain and simple.

It is not, however, government censorship. Personally, I agreed 100% with what the Dixie Chicks said, but no private person or entity has to promote views with which they disagree (nor people who hold those views), so the radio station owners/managers were within their rights to censor them. Just because they weren't government officials, however, doesn't make it not censorship. It's private censorship, which, again, is legal.

And I don't know about Anita, but certainly anyone who's calling for the re-examination of popular culture and the tropes therein, and suggesting that a few changes need to be made is not calling for censorship.

Well, that's exactly what Ms. Sarkeesian is doing, so no, she isn't calling for censorship. She's calling producers of popular culture content (including video games) to examine their own output and be a little less lazy and a little more thoughtful about what they're producing. At no point has she said they shouldn't be allowed, whether by law or by any other censoring body, to produce what they want?she's simply going through a process of examination and criticism.

That's what I never understood the huge backlash against her. If she were actually trying to promote some sort of legislation, or organizing a boycott against game developers or publishers until she gets what she wants, I could see being upset. All she's doing, though, is pointing out what she and many other people see as problems in the content.

 

[Suhi89]

I don't understand where the idea that censorship has to be done by a government comes from. There is so much wrong with the idea. Firstly, prescriptivism is bullshit. If enough people think a word means something, then that's what the word means. If you don't like it, tough. Decimated means destroyed, gay means homosexual, literally is a word used for emphasis and less can mean fewer. Get over it.

Secondly, if the word censorship has ever only meant by governments, and I don't think it has, then it certainly doesn't mean that today. I googled (which is totally a word) "censorship definition" and the top three results were, [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship"]Wikipedia[/a]

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

[a href="http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship"]vocabulary.com[/a]

Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship.
To "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable. Censorship is the name for the process or idea of keeping things like obscene word or graphic images from an audience. There is also such a thing as self-censorship, which is when you refrain from saying certain things ? or possibly re-wording them ? depending on who is listening.

and [a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring"]Merriam Webster [/a]

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

Examples of CENSOR

The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.

No mention of governments anywhere and all three definitions give examples that explicitly don't involve governmental control.

To show that this sort of definition goes back a while, the BBFC used to stand for [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Board_of_Film_Classification"] British Board of Film Censors[/a] and it is

a non-governmental organisation, founded by the film industry in 1912 and responsible for the national classification and censorship of films within the United Kingdom.

So can we stop pretending words don't mean what they clearly mean now?

 

[Ishigami]

Free speech and censorship certainly two items most people don't seem to get.
I love it when a dev/publisher decides to tone down e.g. the violence for e.g. a German release in order to avoid endangering their bottom line by an 18+ rating or even getting on the index (list of restricted media e.g. no advertisement and no display) destroying all hope to make any meaningful income.
You can bet someone will call it censorship. Take a guess: It isn?t.
The same is true for the people in a BBS. I?ve seen in more times than I can count that a moderator steps in after people got out of line that someone demanded their right for free speech.
Again: No, it doesn?t apply.

Can't we just all agree that #gamergate was a stupid idea to begin with, it's bad for the gaming community, it reflects poorly upon gamers as a whole, and it affects gaming's credibility as a legitimate entertainment medium and just move along?

So you are saying it is okay for magazines to hide their affiliations and conflicting interest from the user base continuing lying to them in order to help creating the bottom line of the industry?
I beg to differ.

 

[the7ofswords]

Bob proves that he does not understand the difference between censorship and illegal censorship or the difference between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Article Five of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the procedure for amending it, thus any amendments become part of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights (as the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) is part of the Constitution by definition.

 

[themilo504]

This topic is part of a much larger issue, people are so quick to accuse people and stories of things like racism sexism and indeed censorship that those words have lost all meaning, when most people say something is sexist racist etc what they really mean is ?I don?t like this?, And thats bad because claiming that something is racist sexist etc should be huge accusations, and yes moviebob you are a part of that problem.

 

[Piorn]

Yeah technically games having no blood in germany is not censorship, it's just random, passive-aggressive moral preaching.
"Sure you CAN make a violent game, but then you won't be able to sell it openly. Oh no I'm not judging, just do what you think is right, Mr.GameDev, I'm sure you'll make the right choice."
Thankfully it got better in recent years.

Also that last point was interesting, I find it so weird how many people actively choose to become a stereotype that exclusively defines itself over one or two things they like, to the point where they outright refuse to do or see anything else.

 

[maninahat]

What it's called doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

All you're doing is engaging in BS semantics arguments. "But it's not censorship!" Who cares? It's still wrong and people should stop doing it.

The problem is that if we draw a line and say that what happened to the Dixie Chicks was wrong, we are also potentially saying that any other situation in which me try to petition advertisers is also wrong. If a certain company I was fond of was providing advertising revenue to a group I utterly detested, I might be quite right to petition that company to stop funding these assholes. I don't want to have that avenue closed off to me by a hard and fast rule that says these kinds of boycotts are wrong.

I say this knowing full well that one of the more recent schemes for some gamergate supporters is to enact mass letter campaigns against companies who advertise on the game websites they don't like. I happen to think it is very tacky to try and disrupt the revenue stream to a website because you don't like their articles, but I still think they should have the power to do that.

 

[nayuan01]

Can't we just all agree that #gamergate was a stupid idea to begin with, it's bad for the gaming community, it reflects poorly upon gamers as a whole, and it affects gaming's credibility as a legitimate entertainment medium and just move along?

As any medium who is growing from "niche" to "mainstream" before it, gaming is also going through certain growing pains. I believe #gamergate is an example of such pains and we, as a community, must accept that: (a) if we want to be respected in the medium with the "big boys", we need to grow up (i.e., we need to mature); and (b) as a community, we should not discriminate (the more gamers the merrier, why shun them out?).

1) I agreed 100% with bob in this video - just FYI

2) I disagree 100% with your asertion that Gamergate is a bad thing - but I suspect that its because we define are using different definitons of what gamergate is

For me Gamergate is the consumer revolt against corrupt gaming journalism. It has nothing to do with sexism, discrimination or anything like that. I base this on the mounting evidence of corruption in gaming journalism uncovered over the recent months, and I'll gladly share links with you if you want.

What's your definition? And by what do you base these definitions on?

When I think of gamergate I think of the recent death threats to Anita Srkeesian, I think of the numerous vocal gamers who cry foul of her criticism on sexism and misogyny in the gaming industry. I base this definition on the coverage garnered by the media on Anita's particular situation and the assessment of such actions by the media as being part of the "gamergate" movement.

Based on what your saying, it seemsthat my definition is different from yours.

 

[nayuan01]

Free speech and censorship certainly two items most people don't seem to get.
I love it when a dev/publisher decides to tone down e.g. the violence for e.g. a German release in order to avoid endangering their bottom line by an 18+ rating or even getting on the index (list of restricted media e.g. no advertisement and no display) destroying all hope to make any meaningful income.
You can bet someone will call it censorship. Take a guess: It isn?t.
The same is true for the people in a BBS. I?ve seen in more times than I can count that a moderator steps in after people got out of line that someone demanded their right for free speech.
Again: No, it doesn?t apply.

Can't we just all agree that #gamergate was a stupid idea to begin with, it's bad for the gaming community, it reflects poorly upon gamers as a whole, and it affects gaming's credibility as a legitimate entertainment medium and just move along?

So you are saying it is okay for magazines to hide their affiliations and conflicting interest from the user base continuing lying to them in order to help creating the bottom line of the industry?
I beg to differ.

I think I need to set the record straight. It seems that my definition of "gamergate" (which is based on the references made by the media regarding the death threats made to Anita Sarkeesian) is completely different to the gamergate movement to which you are referring to. It seems that I've been misinformed as to what gamergate really is.

As far as the "gamergate" to which I was referring to, I believe that a vocal niche of the gaming community screaming, hollering and even threatening a dissenting voice for criticizing sexism and misogyny in games is: (a) harmful to the image of gaming and gamers as w hole; (b) it reflects poorly upon the gaming industry and those who comprise it; and (c) places our hobby as "immature" in comparison to the likes of movies, music and art as an entertainment medium.

 

[webkilla]

When I think of gamergate I think of the recent death threats to Anita Srkeesian, I think of the numerous vocal gamers who cry foul of her criticism on sexism and misogyny in the gaming industry. I base this definition on the coverage garnered by the media on Anita's particular situation and the assessment of such actions by the media as being part of the "gamergate" movement.

Based on what your saying, it seemsthat my definition is different from yours.

Thanks for the reply

Indeed, we seem to have some very different definitions of what Gamergate is.


At this point I would question why we have come to these different understandings.

Gamergate as I know it started following three events which followed in quick succession:

1) The revelation that indie-game dev Zoe Quinn had slept around with something in the ballpark of 5 different men who were all tied to the gaming journalism business, in order to garner PR for her game Depression Quest.
- gamers were upset over this because they felt that this was unfair to other indie-devs, and that it skewed the indie-game marked by hyping up a game that many felt just wasn't that good
- this wasn't the first time gaming journos had been caught taking bribes for good reviews, indeed this resentment has been brewing for years, but it became special because of what happened next:

2) the subsequent mass-bannings of gamers talking on various forums and comments sections about the above
- think streisand effect: People talked about this on social media and the news of Quinn's actions as well as the supposed cover-up spread like wild-fire

3) the mass posting of articles on various gaming websites declaring that gamers and gamer culture was dead/evil/hateful/what have you
- this brought mainstream (relative to the internet gaming communities) attention to the above two events, but where the narrative spun was one focusing on the fact that some gamers were harrasing Zoe Quinn... without mentioning why, questioning whether Quinn might have done something that could explain these 'attacks' and so on - as well as using Anita Sarkesian another example
- thus a lot of gamers suddenly wondered why so many gaming journalists were suddenly saying that they were all scum
- it also shifted the public debate far away from journalism ethics, and instead onto misogyny and toxic online behavior, effectively drowning out anyone trying to talk about the very same corrupt journalists

Now, I have no doubt that Quinn, Sarkesian and all the other women that the gaming journalists use to hide behind have received threats - though I do question whether many of these threats actually have anything to do with gamergate, since people talking shit online isn't exactly anything new and nothing actually comes of any of them.

Fun fact: None of the anti-gamergate feminists who've said to have to recieved threats have so far actually been hurt - while gamergate supporters have been mailed stuff... like a syringe full of unknown fluid, or a knife along with a note to kill yourself.

I also have no doubt that 99% of all gamers who support gamergate will - if asked - strongly distance themselves and deny any such threatening behavior.

The gaming journalists of course make no such distinction: If they did, they would also ultimately have to answer to the corruption question because it would mean that suddenly not all gamers are that bad which would end the story - and they do not want that.


That's what I've been seeing for the last two months: Mainstream media picked up on this, using the gaming sites as sources, so of course they spread the same narrative - talking only about misogyny - and thus we're here today.


I just want to be able to play video games - and I want to see the gaming journalists who's articles I read to see what games I should buy not be influenced by who their friends are, who they've had sex with, or who's bought them the most swag at press events.

This is what gamergate is about to me.

Does this seem unreasonable?

EDIT:

Nayu - One more thing: I do not hold any kind of grudge or hard feelings against you for your opinions on gamergate. You've said where you got your information from, so its no wonder that your opinions are shaped the way they are.

The only thing I ask of you is that you are open to seeing things from different persepectives - not everything you've been told from the gaming media websites are unbiased facts.

 

[nayuan01]

When I think of gamergate I think of the recent death threats to Anita Srkeesian, I think of the numerous vocal gamers who cry foul of her criticism on sexism and misogyny in the gaming industry. I base this definition on the coverage garnered by the media on Anita's particular situation and the assessment of such actions by the media as being part of the "gamergate" movement.

Based on what your saying, it seemsthat my definition is different from yours.

Thanks for the reply

Indeed, we seem to have some very different definitions of what Gamergate is.


At this point I would question why we have come to these different understandings.

Gamergate as I know it started following three events which followed in quick succession:

1) The revelation that indie-game dev Zoe Quinn had slept around with something in the ballpark of 5 different men who were all tied to the gaming journalism business, in order to garner PR for her game Depression Quest.
- gamers were upset over this because they felt that this was unfair to other indie-devs, and that it skewed the indie-game marked by hyping up a game that many felt just wasn't that good
- this wasn't the first time gaming journos had been caught taking bribes for good reviews, indeed this resentment has been brewing for years, but it became special because of what happened next:

2) the subsequent mass-bannings of gamers talking on various forums and comments sections about the above
- think streisand effect: People talked about this on social media and the news of Quinn's actions as well as the supposed cover-up spread like wild-fire

3) the mass posting of articles on various gaming websites declaring that gamers and gamer culture was dead/evil/hateful/what have you
- this brought mainstream (relative to the internet gaming communities) attention to the above two events, but where the narrative spun was one focusing on the fact that some gamers were harrasing Zoe Quinn... without mentioning why, questioning whether Quinn might have done something that could explain these 'attacks' and so on - as well as using Anita Sarkesian another example
- thus a lot of gamers suddenly wondered why so many gaming journalists were suddenly saying that they were all scum
- it also shifted the public debate far away from journalism ethics, and instead onto misogyny and toxic online behavior, effectively drowning out anyone trying to talk about the very same corrupt journalists

Now, I have no doubt that Quinn, Sarkesian and all the other women that the gaming journalists use to hide behind have received threats - though I do question whether many of these threats actually have anything to do with gamergate, since people talking shit online isn't exactly anything new and nothing actually comes of any of them.

Fun fact: None of the anti-gamergate feminists who've said to have to recieved threats have so far actually been hurt - while gamergate supporters have been mailed stuff... like a syringe full of unknown fluid, or a knife along with a note to kill yourself.

I also have no doubt that 99% of all gamers who support gamergate will - if asked - strongly distance themselves and deny any such threatening behavior.

The gaming journalists of course make no such distinction: If they did, they would also ultimately have to answer to the corruption question because it would mean that suddenly not all gamers are that bad which would end the story - and they do not want that.


That's what I've been seeing for the last two months: Mainstream media picked up on this, using the gaming sites as sources, so of course they spread the same narrative - talking only about misogyny - and thus we're here today.


I just want to be able to play video games - and I want to see the gaming journalists who's articles I read to see what games I should buy not be influenced by who their friends are, who they've had sex with, or who's bought them the most swag at press events.

This is what gamergate is about to me.

Does this seem unreasonable?

EDIT:

Nayu - One more thing: I do not hold any kind of grudge or hard feelings against you for your opinions on gamergate. You've said where you got your information from, so its no wonder that your opinions are shaped the way they are.

The only thing I ask of you is that you are open to seeing things from different persepectives - not everything you've been told from the gaming media websites are unbiased facts.

Thanks for the crash course on gamergate (I was wayyyyy off) and for your feedback. I actually don't think it's unreasonable to hold journalism (be it gaming or otherwise) to particular set of ethical standards. I would support such a proposition, actually. This issue becomes even more paramount in light of Ubisoft's recent actions in the promotion of Shadows of Mordor and even AC: Unity.

It's interesting, though, how "gamergate" was spun so quickly from an ethical clamor from the gaming community into a hate/sexist/misogyny-inducing "war" between gamers in the media. I note from your summary that items were actually sent to some of the gamergate players and that, perhaps, even threats have been made. This is the type of immaturity (so to speak) that concerns me.

Granted, I believe that it is unfair that the media is quick to crucify gamers who incur in this behavior, particularly when considering that there are also "bad apples" in other sectors (see, e.g., certain "Tea Party supporters", hackers, anti-establishment individuals, etc.) who also commit these type of actions as well. However, just because we are "gamers", we are easy picking for scrutiny in the media. Regardless, this isn't a justification to threaten or harass Quinn and/or Sarkeesian.

We, as a gaming community, should be smarter and better than this. The media is always looking for excuses to attack games and gamers, either by blaming it as the source of society's ills, or trying to demean it as a legitimate entertainment medium.

 

[aceman67]

As a former Moderator/Admin of what was once one of the largest Anime forums in the early 2000's (Animeonline.net), the last part about a Mod telling you that you can't post that on the forum not being censorship is a concept a lot people really never understand.

I dealt with it on a daily basis. Telling people they can't post things that were hateful, morally objectionable, racist, or threatening got me a lot of flack about me 'censoring' them and 'violating' their free speech. Never mind the fact that by signing up to the forums means you agreed to the terms and conditions (and thereby the rules of the forum), which is a binding contract that said 'you won't do this, or this will happen to you'.

The first amendment only protects you from the government stopping you from saying something, not the rest of the country telling you not to say something.

 

[webkilla]

Thanks for the crash course on gamergate (I was wayyyyy off) and for your feedback. I actually don't think it's unreasonable to hold journalism (be it gaming or otherwise) to particular set of ethical standards. I would support such a proposition, actually. This issue becomes even more paramount in light of Ubisoft's recent actions in the promotion of Shadows of Mordor and even AC: Unity.

It's interesting, though, how "gamergate" was spun so quickly from an ethical clamor from the gaming community into a hate/sexist/misogyny-inducing "war" between gamers in the media. I note from your summary that items were actually sent to some of the gamergate players and that, perhaps, even threats have been made. This is the type of immaturity (so to speak) that concerns me.

Granted, I believe that it is unfair that the media is quick to crucify gamers who incur in this behavior, particularly when considering that there are also "bad apples" in other sectors (see, e.g., certain "Tea Party supporters", hackers, anti-establishment individuals, etc.) who also commit these type of actions as well. However, just because we are "gamers", we are easy picking for scrutiny in the media. Regardless, this isn't a justification to threaten or harass Quinn and/or Sarkeesian.

We, as a gaming community, should be smarter and better than this. The media is always looking for excuses to attack games and gamers, either by blaming it as the source of society's ills, or trying to demean it as a legitimate entertainment medium.

1) Your response makes me feel like this kitten:

Basically very happy.

I say this because quite a lot of the hardline anti-gamergate supporters (and there are people like that here on the forum...) would simply deny everything I had posted and called me a liar and a misogynist... and I know that sounds extreme - but there are a lot of people out there on the interwebs who refuse to even listen to the gamergate side.

Like seriously, you would not believe the vitriol being thrown at gamergaters. We've been told we're worse than ISIL!

2) This one is important: Trust, but verify.

For all you know everything I've told you could have been a big lie. I say it is not - but... you should verify it.

It has become a motto for gamergate - because the anti-gamergate people love to spread lies and misinformation.

The following sites have information and links verifying most of what I've said:

http://www.historyofgamergate.com/
http://gamergate.me/
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Main_Page

Oh, and a nice vid sumarizing gamergate in 60 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipcWm4B3EU4
- it even points a few things I've forgotten to mention:

The anti-gamergate lot loves to push the idea that gamergaters are all just white straight basement-dwelling virgin man-children. The hashtag #notyourshield was created in response by black people, women, LGBT folks and what have you - to fight back against the quite literal white-washing the anti-GG people are doing - since the anti-GG side need those evil white males to hate on in order to maintain the support of radical feminists

Oh, and gamergate supporters donated +70.000$ to a charity that helps women to create video games (after a radical feminist nearly destroyed the charity) - and no gaming website would report on it

 

[Lemmibl]

So the only thing I came out with after this episode is a strange sense of delight over the fact that you had a picture of a traditional swedish christmas dinner (Aka julbord. Sounds familiar? Think smorgasbord) @ 03:30.

... I have no regrets.

 

[faeshadow]

What it's called doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

All you're doing is engaging in BS semantics arguments. "But it's not censorship!" Who cares? It's still wrong and people should stop doing it.

The problem is that if we draw a line and say that what happened to the Dixie Chicks was wrong, we are also potentially saying that any other situation in which me try to petition advertisers is also wrong. If a certain company I was fond of was providing advertising revenue to a group I utterly detested, I might be quite right to petition that company to stop funding these assholes. I don't want to have that avenue closed off to me by a hard and fast rule that says these kinds of boycotts are wrong.

I say this knowing full well that one of the more recent schemes for some gamergate supporters is to enact mass letter campaigns against companies who advertise on the game websites they don't like. I happen to think it is very tacky to try and disrupt the revenue stream to a website because you don't like their articles, but I still think they should have the power to do that.

That's not a problem at all. It is not what is done, but how it was done, and why. A person shouldn't have to worry about losing their revenue and having their work set on fire because they merely expressed disappointment in a politician. It would be one thing if one of the Dixie Chicks admitted to committing a crime or said something horribly bigoted, but all they did was say they don't like that a certain politician is from their state.

 

[The Deadpool]

Telling people they can't post things that were hateful, morally objectionable, racist, or threatening got me a lot of flack about me 'censoring' them and 'violating' their free speech.

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal. And likely not immoral either.

The problem is that America worships free speech as a concept, but hates it as a fact...

 

[faeshadow]

Telling people they can't post things that were hateful, morally objectionable, racist, or threatening got me a lot of flack about me 'censoring' them and 'violating' their free speech.

It WAS censorship. It WAS violating free speech. It just wasn't illegal. And likely not immoral either.

The problem is that America worships free speech as a concept, but hates it as a fact...

Well, you're half right. It was censorship, but it wasn't violating "free speech", since "free speech" is a reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution, which admin censorship doesn't apply to.

 

[abort_user]

Wow so many things wrong with this. It's sad because MovieBob is usually pretty great. First off "dork" never meant whale's penis. It is slang for penis but the whale stuff is just a myth. Even if it wasn't a myth it's still a terrible analogy (for the reason used in my final point). Second you aren't giving your audience enough credit. When people say "censor" they can mean it in a way that's not government censorship. In fact, they generally do. Government censorship is bad, but people think different types of censorship are also bad. Remember you do not define words. Words are defined by usage. If everyone is making claims about such and such being "censored" and you disagree, odds are you are in the wrong.