You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
...if you cannot explain what it has to do with censorship...
Do you believe censorship is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
Do you believe racism is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
Do you believe murder is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
I'm perfectly happy to follow you down either path (the primacy of intention (OR) the primacy of consequence).
All conversation boils down to an exchange of personal opinions.
My intention is to explore the similarities and identify the differences between our opinions.
Would it be fair to say that you believe intention is NEVER relevant?
What belief? Censorship is either ON/HAPPENING or it is OFF/NOT-HAPPENING. Though that might not be as interesting to you as the why behind it, censorship is the act irrespective of intent, and no matter how you try and avoid that absolutely no intent can make something censorship simply and/or purely because of intent.
You're avoiding what I said initially about intentions and Censorship either way through, and this left turn in the conversation you tried to make with intention and censorship was in avoidance of what I said regarding your false equivalents that Booing is Censorship, something you've to yet refute:
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
We aren't discussing my philosophic ideations but the fact that intent is not what makes ANYTHING censorship. Censorship is the Effect, the Result, ergo Either there is Censorship or There Isn't.
(IFF) censorship is the effect (THEN) a news outlet that prefers to publish national news and ignores local news (or vice-versa) is de facto censoring the news stories it doesn't publish.
Does this standard sound consistent with your "censorship is the effect" framework?
You're confusing ignoring something with removing or otherwise altering something.
The difference between ignoring and removing is contingent on MOTIVATION.
The "effect" is identical.
Ultimately motive alone doesn't make something Censorship or not.
Now it's "not motive alone"? Exactly how much motive is relevant in your opinion, and what mysterious "other factors" do you consider critical in determining if something is "censored" or not?
Ignoring is Passive. Removing/ Censoring is Active. Ignoring is not Avoiding. In the former nothing was Created that was later Suppressed or altered, and in the later it is contingent on something that was violated. The effect is that one goes without any victim while the other cannot be without a victim.
So, just for clarity's sake, If someone goes to a newspaper and begs them to write a story about how puppies are being slaughtered or some-such, and the newspaper doesn't write that story, instead they feature the grand-opening of a new ice-cream parlor on their front page, would you consider that "passive ignoring" or "active avoiding"?
Deontological ethics
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.