for the List [was neo-Nazis on the Net]

[David Casseres]

I wrote
>> .... Censorship is when someone with legal 
>> authority denies you the right to express your views using the facilities 
>> normally available to the general public, or threatens to punish you for 
>> expressing them at all.

Dale Larson replies
>What's the point of arguing over the definition of censorship?  Check the
>dictionary. The ones I've checked disagree with you by giving several
>definitions which don't require anything which might be interpreted as
>"legal authority."  Either way, who cares -- agree for the purpose of the 
>discussion what your terms are and then carry on.

I don't care about the definition, I care about making some important 
distinctions.  If you'd like me to say "governmental censorship" and 
"private censorship," I'll try to comply in the future.  The point is 
that one of them is very widely believed, by Americans at at least, to be 
a moral abomination; and it's forbidden by our constitution.  The other 
is widely felt to be a prerogative (even a responsibility) of whoever 
owns the means of publication -- and in the case of Internet newsgroups, 
that's us.

>As to your other example, the leases movie theaters have which don't
>permit them to screen unrated or NC-17 movies seems certainly to be a kind
>of private censorship on the part of the landlords, and I think it stinks.
>It's fine if you think such leases are dandy, but I don't see the point of
>discussing it by arguing about the definition of the word "censorship." 

This is a red herring.  If I leased property to a movie theater I would 
probably put language in the lease to forbid the showing of Nazi or 
racist propaganda films, i.e. I would engage in private censorship.  If 
you think that would stink, well, you're wrong; and it doesn't have a 
goddamn thing to do with the definition of the word "censorship."


Cheers,
David