#294291 - 26/02/2007 14:27
The Morality of Self-Censorship
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I think most of us agree that censorship is a bad thing. Even though I personally disagree with a lot of things people say, I do not believe it is correct for a governing body to force the silence of people with disagreeable or offensive viewpoints.
I've always felt like self-censorship is not a bad thing, however- it is a choice that people (or businesses, whatever) make freely because they feel it is in their best interest to do so. Not because a governing body forces them, but because there is external pressure that they feel is strong enough to warrant modifying their statements or public opinions. It seems to me, though, that if a person or business weighs their options and decides that self-censorship is the better choice to meet their goals, there is no ethical issue there. But perhaps some would disagree?
I was thinking about this because TheDailyWTF.com just changed its name to WorseThanFailure.com. The reason stated is because the owner of the site didn't want to be offensive, and felt like the original name was more offensive than he really intended it to be. There was an extreme backlash against this change (of course), and several people accused him of censorship. Of course, this change was his own choice, whether because of marketing or personal views, and not the censorship of a governing body. I think he'll probably lose traffic because of the name change (his old name had a lot of branding and would generate interest all by itself), but I don't see it as an ethical issue.
Personally, I actually prefer the name change, but the old one didn't bother me too much. While I'm not a big fan of swear words, even in acronyms, I live in the real world and realize that I can read WTF a few times and the world will keep turning. To me the new name is a bit more respectful, which I appreciate, though I doubt the little bit of respect I feel will make up by the tons of people who have lost all respect because of the self-censorship.
So, any thoughts? Is self-censorship bad/evil, or is it a natural and acceptable result of respect for others and market forces?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294292 - 26/02/2007 14:54
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
His field, his ball, his rules. Anyone censoring themselves for personal reasons should not feel any regret in doing so, but should also not be surprised or disappointed when people go somewhere else for something more "raw."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294293 - 26/02/2007 15:02
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/12/2001
Posts: 5528
|
As Tony said, it is his own decision to change it. What he wants to do with his own site is his own business.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294294 - 26/02/2007 15:43
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/06/2001
Posts: 2504
Loc: Roma, Italy
|
In which way is what one calls "self censorship" different than "freely deciding what to say"?
I can't imagine how a concept as "censorship" can be applied to oneself.
If you can freely decide what to say, that means you can freely decide what not to say. It seem to me that te definition of "self censoship", because of that "self", simply overlaps with the definition of "freedom of speech".
Certainly, the reasons behind one's choice of what to say and what not may be very different. This is however something which has no relationship with "censorship."
_________________________
= Taym =
MK2a #040103216 * 100Gb *All/Colors* Radio * 3.0a11 * Hijack = taympeg
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294295 - 26/02/2007 16:25
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: Taym]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
In which way is what one calls "self censorship" different than "freely deciding what to say"?
I agree completely, obviously. I used the term because it was brought up several times in the thread on that site, and even referenced as as a Wikipedia entry.
The way the thread actually went was something like:
poster 1: Censorship is bad!
poster 2: This isn't censorship, learn your definitions poster 1
poster 3: It IS censorship, It is self-censorship- look at the wikipedia entry on the subject
I'd never heard of "self-censorship" before today, and the idea interested me because I don't view "censorship" as something you can do to yourself. But rather than engage this point in an obviously charged and somewhat immature thread, I wanted to see what mature people who I respect, and who often have different opinions on these things than myself, thought.
Quote:
If you can freely decide what to say, that means you can freely decide what not to say. It seem to me that te definition of "self censoship", because of that "self", simply overlaps with the definition of "freedom of speech".
Exactly. It seems to me, then, if he changed the name back due to the outcry of the public, he'd be committing every bit as much of a "crime" as the change in the first place (which is to say, none at all really  ).
Edited by JeffS (26/02/2007 16:27)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294296 - 26/02/2007 16:32
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
I've always felt like self-censorship is not a bad thing, however
Self-censorship is fine. It's a personal decision. I might try to avoid saying f*ck in front of children, or my father-in-law. A TV station might avoid showing nipples before 9pm.
In both cases, it's our decision -- I'm doing it not to offend people (the kids' parents, the father-in-law), because there might be repercussions. The TV station's normally doing it in order to avoid losing advertising revenue.
As an aside (and let's not go there again) I disagree with the whole Janet Jackson/nipple/FCC thing, because that's not self-censorship. If the TV station decides to censor something, if they're doing it because of possible censure by the FCC, that's a bit of a grey area for me. There's a US/UK cultural division going on there, though.
Quote:
TheDailyWTF.com just changed its name to WorseThanFailure.com.
I read that announcement, and it came across more as embarrassment about having to explain to his grandmother what it stood for.
If it was me, I'd simply have said "The Daily What-the-F", and grandma would be smart enough to work out what I meant without me saying it. Of course, my grandma wouldn't be so offended.
As someone else said: his ball, his rules (or something like that).
I did once attempt (in an ATL mailing list discussion) to put my vote for having either Attila or WTL (I don't remember which) named the Windows Template Framework, but it never happened.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294297 - 26/02/2007 16:47
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/06/2001
Posts: 2504
Loc: Roma, Italy
|
Quote:
a Wikipedia entry.
I read that the Wikipedia entry is in essence saying that, when one knows he will be censored, one refrains from publishing something in order to avoid the formal, official censorship.
That's still an "illogical" definition, in my opinion, and, if you allow me, a bit naive.
If you assume censorship will occur, and you're right, that's censorship, not "self".
If you assume censorship will occur, and you're wrong, that's no censorship.
_________________________
= Taym =
MK2a #040103216 * 100Gb *All/Colors* Radio * 3.0a11 * Hijack = taympeg
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294298 - 26/02/2007 16:50
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I read that announcement, and it came across more as embarrassment about having to explain to his grandmother what it stood for.
I think the issue for him personally was a bit broader than just his grandmother; more that this was an example that made him feel uncomfortable about the site.
Quote:
If it was me, I'd simply have said "The Daily What-the-F", and grandma would be smart enough to work out what I meant without me saying it.
Well, in fact when I've pointed people to the site and they've asked for an explanation as to what WTF means, this is precisely what I've said. I get the impression that Alex's main issue wasn't offending his grandma (since he could have simply explained it was "worse than failure" to her) as it was he felt like he was creating something publicly that wasn't consistent with his personal values.
I can see myself in his situation, creating a site called the thedailywtf because it's funny for a small obscure audience, having the thing really grow, and then realize that maybe what I'd created wasn't consistent with my personal values. Of course, that's just speculation. I don't know the author of the site at all; I DO think this was a decision broader than just trying to appease his grandmother. After all, he had to know this will probably kill his business (which it has become since he sells advertising on it).
This IS a question broader than this one example, though. For example, what if some mega-chain bookstore decides to stop selling a book because they believe it to be offensive to most people. Is this censorship or so-called self-censorship? Should they have the right to do that?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294299 - 26/02/2007 17:17
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
This IS a question broader than this one example, though. For example, what if some mega-chain bookstore decides to stop selling a book because they believe it to be offensive to most people. Is this censorship or so-called self-censorship? Should they have the right to do that?
With this example, you're conflating "self censorship" and plain ol' "censorship." Barnes and Noble or Borders don't produce content, they distribute it. By refusing to carry controversial books/movies/music, they are not censoring themselves, they are censoring someone else.
What you speak of is not a hypothetical, of course, it happens every day. Stores that sell these items regularly refuse to carry certain controversial/profane titles. Wal*Mart is famous for this, and unapologetic about it. But, despite my distaste for Wal*Mat on many levels, I don't see why they should have to carry anything they don't want to. But I think it's much more accurate to call this "censorship" than "self censorship" unless it's a division of Wal*Mart that produced the content. It just happens to be a very limited category of censorship that I think is acceptable, because it's no more right to tell them what they must sell than it is to tell me what I cannot buy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294300 - 26/02/2007 17:30
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
I'm not sure if I like the usage of the word 'censorship' in this case. Reasons for censoring things can be much broader than simply 'not wishing to offend'. I don't have much time right now, but I'll give wikipedia's entry for Political Correctness a good read later.
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294301 - 26/02/2007 18:27
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
With this example, you're conflating "self censorship" and plain ol' "censorship."
Not conflating- I specifically asked which it would be. It is a related to the original example, if not the same thing, because in both cases you have people deciding to limit themselves; the difference is that in the bookstore case, they are not solely responsible for the message that is being limited. Not a minor difference, obviously, but still not the same thing as limiting speech by a governing body.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294302 - 26/02/2007 19:06
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I apologize for my total lack of reading comprehension in writing my last response. Still, I don't see any kind of dilemma. If you're not the one writing the content, then you're censoring, not self-censoring. You're not limiting yourself, you're limiting someone else. There's a minor argument that can be made that says Wal*Mart or Barnes and Noble loses a few sheckles by not carrying a controversial/profane title, but with the Almighty Dollar being the only true God that all companies serve, I can guarantee you their bean counters have figured out that what's lost in the micro view will be made up for by things like "positive brand image" and a "family-friendly atmosphere" in the stores.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294303 - 26/02/2007 19:10
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
This IS a question broader than this one example, though. For example, what if some mega-chain bookstore decides to stop selling a book because they believe it to be offensive to most people. Is this censorship or so-called self-censorship? Should they have the right to do that?
With this example, you're conflating "self censorship" and plain ol' "censorship." Barnes and Noble or Borders don't produce content, they distribute it. By refusing to carry controversial books/movies/music, they are not censoring themselves, they are censoring someone else.
[...]
I think it's much more accurate to call this "censorship" than "self censorship"
I think it's more accurate to not call it censorship. Just because someone has something to say doesn't mean a private company has to provide them the forum in which to say it, or the forum for you to obtain it. If Barnes and Noble or Walmart doesn't carry the book/music, whatever, because they deem it unpalatable, they're not preventing the author from selling it somewhere else in the work's current form. It's not censorship -- self, or otherwise. If they say "we'll carry it, but only if you bleep out the swearwords", that's still not censorship -- they're telling the author what the requirements are for selling something in their venue, and it's up to the author to decide if he/she is willing to change the work to suit. Now, if B&N or Walmart carried the titles, but modified the content without the author's consent (and/or knowledge) to fit their view of what's palatable for sale -- that is censorship.
Obviously, once the government gets involved (replace B&N and Walmart with Canada and USA, or some other countries), and it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294304 - 26/02/2007 19:29
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I think it's more accurate to not call it censorship. Just because someone has something to say doesn't mean a private company has to provide them the forum in which to say it, or the forum for you to obtain it. If Barnes and Noble or Walmart doesn't carry the book/music, whatever, because they deem it unpalatable, they're not preventing the author from selling it somewhere else in the work's current form. It's not censorship -- self, or otherwise. If they say "we'll carry it, but only if you bleep out the swearwords", that's still not censorship -- they're telling the author what the requirements are for selling something in their venue, and it's up to the author to decide if he/she is willing to change the work to suit. Now, if B&N or Walmart carried the titles, but modified the content without the author's consent (and/or knowledge) to fit their view of what's palatable for sale -- that is censorship.
I agree 100% that the stores should not be obligated to sell everything that comes their way. But when they do this, they are, in effect, censoring. As a reminder, the dictionary definition of "censorship" contains both "suppress" and "delete." I am not arguing that Wal*Mart "deletes" objectionable content, but by choosing what to sell and what not to sell, they are indeed suppressing. And, I would argue that the buying power of a Wal*Mart or a Barnes and Noble can (and has) prevented a lot of books from ever seeing the light of day.
Quote:
Obviously, once the government gets involved (replace B&N and Walmart with Canada and USA, or some other countries), and it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Please tell me where corporate America ends and the U.S. Government begins. And please, show your work. 
Edited by tonyc (26/02/2007 19:33)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#294305 - 26/02/2007 21:19
Re: The Morality of Self-Censorship
[Re: Taym]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Indeed, the "self censorship" described on wikipedia seems to have more to do with there being a pervasive threat of censorship and/or ostrasization from some governmental authority. One chooses to avoid taking the risk of official sanction voluntarily, but only because of the threatening environment. This is a form of censorship, in my opinion.
Changing the name of your web site as you see fit is the *exact* opposite of censorship -- it's free speech! Practically the definition of it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index