You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
...censorship is the act irrespective of intent...
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?
...censorship is the act irrespective of intent...
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to 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?
There's nothing mysterious at all about an act being censorship or not, REGARDLESS of motive. It's the Result that makes something Censorship or not.
Perhaps you could illustrate your point more clearly with specific examples?
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"?
Which statement more accurately describes it:
A: The newspaper ignored the puppy story.
B: The newspaper avoided the puppy story.
I'm asking you that exact same question.
I'm trying to figure out YOUR STANDARD FOR "CENSORSHIP AS CONSEQUENCE".
The newspaper could claim, "well, that person complaining about the puppy-slaughter didn't seem credible to me, and even though one of our rookie reporters is sketching up a puppy-slaughter story, we already have this new ice-cream parlor story all lined up for the front page, so I didn't think there's any good reason to scrap that and start from scratch (re-mockup the front page), besides people find puppy-slaughter depressing and I don't think our readership would really appreciate that kind of thing, even if it might be true, which it probably isn't, I mean, who would kill a puppy? Have you ever seen one? Oh, my gosh, they're absolutely adorable!!!"
Does that answer your question?
Would you consider that definitely censorship (OR) would you consider that definitely NOT censorship?
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.