[ SECRET POST #3003 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3003 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #429.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[blitzwing]

They read the Constitution

The Constitution defines "censorship" as something only a government can do? Mind telling me what article of it says that?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

The first amendment defines what censorship is legally. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the key concept here is prior restraint. See also the Zenger case in terms why publishers of material are protected.

As is usually the case, the "free speech" advocated here is usually editorial interference to force a pet project into print. DC commissioned the work. They published the work (through pre-release channels.) They chose not to print the work. All of the above decisions are legally protected free speech.

[blitzwing]

The first amendment defines what censorship is legally.

No, it actually doesn't. The first amendment doesn't even use the word "censor" or "censorship".

They chose not to print the work.

A prime example of self-censorship.

[(Anonymous)]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censorship

Notice how it's all about the government, and not private parties to each other.

Censorship is one of those words that are colloquially used to mean something different or in exaggeration, like "assault". What it means in a legal context is not what it means when thrown around like in the phrase, "I opened the fridge and the smell of the spoiled milk assaulted my nostrils". If I were to argue that as assault in a legal context, they'd laugh me out of court.

What you mean by censorship is not what censorship legally means, just like what people mean by "assault" or 13 year old boys on CoD mean by "rape" is not what those words legally mean.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

"But anon," you protest. "13 year old boys on CoD do say they raped you all the time!"

This does not make them technically correct, or they would be sex offenders.

[blitzwing]

"What you mean by censorship is not what censorship legally means"

The ACLU does not agree with you, sir, madam, or honored non-binary person:

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
" --ACLU https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/censorship

[cbrachyrhynchos]

A prime example of self-censorship.

Which doesn't apply in this case because we're not talking about the USPS threatening to drag Time-Warner into court for obscenity. We're not even talking about the Comics Code which could deny distribution. We're talking about an editorial decision about which covers to run based on market feedback. And that is legally protected free speech, whether it's Mad Magazine, imports of Charlie Hebdo, Heavy Metal, or a Manara cover for Spiderwoman. You can't defend editorial freedom only when it agrees with you.

[(Anonymous)]

Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself and all of us.

[(Anonymous)]

It'd be more accurate to say that the First Amendment provides a defense of a specific right (free speech) against a specific party (the federal government) acting in specific ways (prior restraint).

The point that I would make, though - and, I think, the point that Blitzwing might be trying to make, I don't know, don't even ask me about that whole thing - is that the question of free speech is way wider than the First Amendment, the federal government, and prior restraint. It even extends beyond that which is legally protected and legally punishable. Whether or not you want to use the word censorship - which I think is besides the point, because it becomes an incredibly pedantic argument - there are threats to free speech that do not come from the government. Self-censoring can be a thing. It may not be a question of what is legally permissible, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And more broadly, I think, if the sum of our rights is that the government is prohibited from doing such-and-such things, that's a very paltry thing.

[(Anonymous)]

The first amendment defines what censorship is legally.

Does that mean only Americans can be censored?

[dethtoll]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You'll note that it ONLY

ONLY

ONLY

ONLY

ONLY

specifies the government. Private persons and private spaces are NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.

[blitzwing]

specifies the government. Private persons and private spaces are NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.

And your point is? Not legally required to avoid censoring =/= cannot censor.

[dethtoll]

I really should find whoever taught you that word and give them a stern talking to.

[blitzwing]

I really should find whoever taught you that word and give them a stern talking to.

Or you could try googling the word and finding out how other people actually use it: both its formal meaning and its common usage.

[dethtoll]

God fucking dammit. It's clear to me that you absolutely must have the last word, so whatever, you fucking win, I'm out.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

If you respond to deathtoll's comment you will have beaten him at his own game of "have the last word". I've never seen anyone do that.

TAKE THE WIN. FINISH HIM!!!

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

TAKE THE WIN. FINISH HIM!!!

Pretty sure he finished himself, lol. He's so afraid of me pointing out his poor reasoning that he's asked me to never respond to his comments or communicate with him again.

I take that to mean that he plans on saying loaaaaaads of dumb stuff in the future and knows I'd eviscerate his arguments.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

*tips fedora*

(frozen comment)

[233c]

What the fuck is wrong with you? Dethtoll isn't the best debater but at least he had the sense to stop arguing with you. It's kind of fucked up that you read that as a "win" and you're so proud of making him flounce out of the discussion and yet you're still preening like you're the smartest person here. Get your ego in check.

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

"What the fuck is wrong with you?"

Nothing, clearly I am perfect in every way.

"Dethtoll isn't the best debater but at least he had the sense to stop arguing with you."

As I advised him to do early on. I commend him for taking my sensible advice--albeit he could have taken it even sooner.

"It's kind of fucked up that you read that as a 'win'"

I didn't read that as a win; airt did.

"and you're so proud of making him flounce out of the discussion"

He was still going strong after ceasing communication with me, last I checked.

"yet you're still preening like you're the smartest person here"

If the size 11 shoe fits...

"Get your ego in check."

Ego? I'm as modest as I am handsome, intelligent, kind, creative, strong, and amusing.

[diet_poison]

I'm pretty sure we're talking about the formal meaning here?

[blitzwing]

The formal meaning backs up my statements though.

[(Anonymous)]

No. Look, I don't especially like dethtoll, but he's right here and you? Really aren't. Plus you come off as the typical "I'm sure I know this fact, aren't I smart" ignoramus.

[dancing_clown]

Which means that only censorship ordered by the government is a violation of the first amendment and an infringement of freedom of speech. Not that censorship can only be done by the government.

[(Anonymous)]

i would argue that "freedom of speech" is ambiguous and can refer either to the (specific, instantiated, grounded, Constitutional) freedom of speech from the first amendment, or to the right to free speech more generally as a human right (in which case it's not true that only censorship ordered by the government is an infringement of the right to free speech)

but, yes, for the most part, i think you're right