| Content Monitor???? You've got to be joking, right... |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | yeah, they still exist... however, for pearl jam to use the word 'censorship' with respect to a corporation is inaccurate... censorship is a government practice, not a corporate or individual action... for that to be the case, they should said that their speech was repressed, suppressed, or omitted, but not censored... |
|
| not to be picky...but thats not correct:
Websters is as follows:
censor
Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
So AT&T did indead engage in censorship and it blows my mind. Say goodbye to the internet as we knew it |
|
 hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | reply to Asmodeus
ATT = Government practice
Well, at least ATT is paying the government.
--
Fossils, Not Gospels. |
|
 Sr TechPremium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | ATT thinks they are the government...lol |
|
| reply to Asmodeus
way to try (but fail horribly) at being a grammar nazi. |
|
| reply to Sr Tech
AT&T has more power than the government. |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | reply to CableConvert
said by CableConvert:not to be picky...but thats not correct: Websters is as follows: censor Main Entry: 2censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable So AT&T did indead engage in censorship and it blows my mind. Say goodbye to the internet as we knew it the word 'censorship' is broadly and often mistakenly used to define any speech that is suppressed by anyone... however, only governments can actively and legally or illegally censor speech... everything else is merely suppression... webster may think they have the definition of censorship, but they would be incorrect and that definition alone is to broad to pinpoint who and what entity can or cannot censor.
also, refutation by definition is a bad way to dialogue... |
|
| »dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor |
|
2 edits | reply to Asmodeus
Yes, but when the line between government and corporations begins to blur, and capitalism turns to corporatism, how can we fail to recognize this for anything other than what it is? Censorship, suppression, these are just words that convey the same idea. I infer, and correct me if I'm wrong, from your emotionally detached tone that you believe there is nothing wrong what AT&T has done. If so I find your choice to mince words over such a serious topic a poor crutch against actually having to debate the morality AT&T's actions. You obviously have brains, don't waste them on frivolous nitpicking and take responsibility for your beliefs. |
|
|
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to DreamWraith
I beleive "Nazi" is a proper noun and should be capitalized...;) |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
1 edit | reply to Asmodeus
said by Asmodeus  webster may think they have the definition of censorship, but they would be incorrect and that definition alone is to broad to pinpoint who and what entity can or cannot censor.
They would be incorrect... because you say so? I think I would take the definition provided by Webster's dictionary over you, thanks.
Anyway, you are confusing the supression of freedom of speech with censorship. Only the government is forbidden from inhibiting someone's freedom of speech, not a corporation, etc.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
 MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
1 edit | reply to Asmodeus
Your claim is baseless, his is based. According to whom censorship is only an act of government? Not according to Websters definition of the word, which is more widely respected than some guy on the internet's definition of the word. Site a respected source that dictates censorship is an act only performed by the government. If something is removed based on content that is by definition "being censored." By definition any time something is censored that is "censor"ship.
Edit: content, not contact. |
|
| reply to Necronomikro
it's line #2 that concerns me. |
|
| reply to Rob_Roy
can you say "FACISM"?
" The Smell of the Weimar
Republic is in the Air "
-Gore Vidal |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | reply to Rob_Roy
said by Rob_Roy:Yes, but when the line between government and corporations begins to blur, and capitalism turns to corporatism, how can we fail to recognize this for anything other than what it is? Censorship, suppression, these are just words that convey the same idea. I infer, and correct me if I'm wrong, from your emotionally detached tone that you believe there is nothing wrong what AT&T has done. If so I find your choice to mince words over such a serious topic a poor crutch against actually having to debate the morality AT&T's actions. You obviously have brains, don't waste them on frivolous nitpicking and take responsibility for your beliefs. your inference would be incorrect with regards to my unemotional nature in presenting what is qualified as censorship and who can really carry it out... my main contention, not only with the news story, but with the way people use the word is incorrect... i believe that the meanings of words and how they are used matters... i'm not debating the 'morality' of what at&t did or didn't do with regards to the omission of the comments by pearl jam... i'm just saying that there are clear and precise distinction about the use of the word censorship and how it gets used as an overreaching phrase to mean anyone or anything that relates to the suppression of speech; political or otherwise...
i believe that clarity is more important than having you agree with my point... at least if there is a disagreement with it, you know what i'm saying and why... since, you are attacking my intellect, i submit to you that not only am i taking responsibilities for my beliefs, but i'm voicing them to you so you can understand clearly and concisely why i've stated them... |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
1 edit | reply to ieolus
said by ieolus:said by Asmodeus webster may think they have the definition of censorship, but they would be incorrect and that definition alone is to broad to pinpoint who and what entity can or cannot censor.
They would be incorrect... because you say so? I think I would take the definition provided by Webster's dictionary over you, thanks. Anyway, you are confusing the supression of freedom of speech with censorship. Only the government is forbidden from inhibiting someone's freedom of speech, not a corporation, etc. censorship is unconstitutional to freedom of speech, particularly political speech, is it not...? only government can commit an act of constitutionality or unconstitutionality can it not...? therefore, if at&t, a corporate entity, not a government entity commits an act of 'censorhip' against pearl jam, have they committed an act of unconstitutionality or not...? so if pearl jam decides to sue at&t for said censorship, what prevailing precedent of censorship of political speech, which i believe pearl jam claimed they were making, would the be suing them under as a constitutional matter...? they could and wouldn't be allowed to... it would most likely be a civil matter, not a federal issue, which strikes directly at the heart of who and what censorship is and when government exercises to censor any speech, and most likely political speech, they can be sued under many prevailing federal statutes as being unconstitutional and they would most likely win... an empty win, but a win nonetheless...
censorship is about constitutionality, not corporate suppression of speech and only the government on a local, state, or the federal level can be accused of unconstitutional censorship or censorship of speech of any kind, not corporations or individuals...
again, debating via dictionary.com is a bad precedent to argue by... it gives the impression of intellectual laziness... use logical reasonig and critical thinking to establish your points of contention, not emotional sentimentality of what you think something is or isn't or should be...
edit: here is an article on a lawsuit between time warner and direc tv... time warner sued direct tv because the claim was made that in their commercials, direct tv claimed to have superior service to time warner... time warner won, now those ads are blocked... they can no longer use that speech to make their claims, true, false or otherwise... two private entities engaged in litigation to censor or suppress speech...? understand what i'm saying...?
»www.reuters.com/article/technolo···20070809
pearl jam claims censorhip of their speech by at&t across their content portal... time warner sues direct tv to get them to stop saying that their service is superior to time warners and wins by court mandate... censorship or suppression of speech... before you say anything, just think about this for a little while and let it stew in your mind... |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
1 edit | reply to Maxo
said by Maxo:Your claim is baseless, his is based. According to whom censorship is only an act of government? Not according to Websters definition of the word, which is more widely respected than some guy on the internet's definition of the word. Site a respected source that dictates censorship is an act only performed by the government. If something is removed based on content that is by definition "being censored." By definition any time something is censored that is "censor"ship. Edit: content, not contact. baseless...? if the federal government asked at&t to censor pearl jams speech, then they would be liable for committing an unconstitutional act as an agent of the government... however, the allegation is that pearl jam had their speech censored by a corporate entity working unto itself to control it's content... that is suppression of speech, not censorship of speech... i think i've stated the idea fairly well, so i won't belabor it anymore and let it stand on it's own merits... the word is simply used incorrectly and in the wrong contexts... the english language has been butchered enough as it is already... i may be accused of being a grammar cop, but at this point i'd rather have that moniker instead seeing good words being used badly...
sorry... i forgot to at least give you a modicum of a citation on censorship and how it's conducted... maybe this will help give clarity and understanding to what i've been saying...
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship···d_States
also look at censorship in other countries and see how that is conducted... |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Maxo
said by Maxo: Not according to Websters definition of the word, which is more widely respected than some guy on the internet's definition of the word. As the official "Some Guy on the Internet" I must protest this illegal usage of my name and persona! 
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | reply to tHE mESSENGER
said by tHE mESSENGER :
can you say "FACISM"?
" The Smell of the Weimar
Republic is in the Air "
-Gore Vidal
can you say, "overused hyperbole"...? |
|
