[ 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

[cbrachyrhynchos]

None of the alternative models of censorship apply in this case. We're not talking about the MPAA blocking distribution of a film to a multi-billion dollar market because it portrays cunnilingus. Tumblr, as banally evil as it is, is not an oligarchic consortium comparable to the MPAA, nor is it a major financier bullying its way into the newsroom as we saw with The Telegraph, nor is it a monopolistic player ala Amazon.

We're talking tags on tumblr and twitter, who are offended by something published by the Big 2 on the order of once a month. They swing no coercive weight, and Big 2 are not remotely shy about pissing them off for the sake of publicity. This case exists entirely within the realm of editorial practice, which is protected speech. Even if you disagree with it.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, in this case it's self-censorship and not really a free speech issue. The artist chose to pull the cove. good for him, I have no problem with this.

My horse in this race is the idea that censorship is only something the government does.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I don't call it self-censorship because it's not done to meet the demands of a coercive authority capable of exercising prior restraint. If you want non-governmental censorship: MPAA, Amazon, and Apple come to mind. I don't see a coercive authority in this case.

[(Anonymous)]

let me preface this by saying that I like you a lot, you always seem very chill and quite logical, so I assume I am failing to make myself clear with this.

Any time you make a choice to say one thing over another, even if there is no reason behind it other than wanting to be polite, you are censoring yourself. in this use of thee term censorship (self censorship) the criteria to qualify is shockingly low level, so "I decided not to release it" is self censorship even if the reason was simply that he decided he'd rather not release the cover. As I say in this case the censorship is minor, and self inflicted. If his bosses had told him they were pulling the cover, the censorship would have been DC self censoring, and still not a free speech issue.

If threats of an attack, lawsuit, boycotting, political action etc etc etc had cause the cover to be pulled, it would have been a much more grey area. I think it would have been censorship (Maybe not boycotting. People choosing not to buy something is their own prerogative) but as I say this was not the case so, to reiterate: I do not believe this is anything close to a free speech issue.

My main problem is the idea in this thread that censorship and free speech issues are exclusively tied to the government. Anyone with enough power is capable of impeding another person's free speech. Anyone with enough power is capable of censoring another person. and everyone has enough power to censor themselves (Tourettes sufferers not withstanding), but that is not a free speech issue.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I think you're clear. I just don't agree. I think that crying "censorship" on an interpersonal or grass-roots basis has become something similar to a Godwin, a discussion-killing meme. I really can't take seriously that people like me have censored Orson Scott Card, who cracked the NYT Bestseller lists with multiple books when Ender's Game was in theaters.

[(Anonymous)]

How is it self-censorship to change your mind?

[(Anonymous)]

because it is. If I was going to type anything else here as a reply, but decided to phrase it another way, that is still self-censorship. Anytime youthink better of taking a particualr course of action it is self censorship. Anytime I don't go off on a swearing tirade against this particular co worker and instead treat them professionally, I am censoring myself.

[(Anonymous)]

But those are things that you stop yourself from doing even though you still want to do them. You're not silencing or suppressing yourself if you decide that you don't want to do something anymore... you just don't want to do it anymore. If I don't swear at a coworker even though I really want to, then that's self-censorship, but if I simply lose the desire to swear at them, then it isn't self-censorship to not swear at them.

Pretty much everything can apparently be interpreted as self-censorship under your definition of the term. That's a pretty loose definition, and one that seems pretty different from what everyone else in this thread is talking about.

[diet_poison]

that waters down the word "censorship" to something essentially useless

[(Anonymous)]

thank you :/
I think it also stems from a kind of entitlement, that you should always and forever be your ~true self~ at every given moment and damn everybody else, anything less is self-censorship. When really, part of living in society means that you need to learn to interact with your surroundings, and sometimes that means not doing or saying whatever you want at any given moment.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. I don't think self censorship is bad. I was never saying that. In point of fact self censorship is a vital part of free speech.

The point I was making is that the word censorship does not exist in a Government only context. it happens on a personal level. it happens on an interpersonal level. A person can be silenced by themselves which is fine, and an person can be silenced by others, which is not fine, and a person can be silenced by their government which is really not fine, and infact in America is a crime.

[(Anonymous)]

I still think that using the word 'censorship' for this phenomenon is diluting its meaning. And I don't think that it's necessary to use 'self censorship' in place of perfectly good words like, say, 'tact'.

Censorship is generally considered a negative thing, so I fail to see what the point is in convincing people that by not being asshats they are actually self-censoring, which implies that they *shouldn't* have to because censorship is bad. We see too much of that entitled shit.
Let's go back to calling it being polite.

[(Anonymous)]

No it waters down the concept of self-censorship to something essentially useless.

Which is is. I'm just using the concept of self censorship to show that censorship is NOT exclusive to government intervention.

Almost everyone can self-censor it's not special or dangerous or a violation of free speech. Free speech depends on people censoring themselves.

I'm just using it to show that Censor = To suppress expression. In the context of self censorship is is not bad.

Look (and I agree this doesn't entirely fit because self-harm is still not good, but it will work to show that a word still applies even when the context decreases the meaning) "Harm" is a bad thing. If I cut myself it is self-harm
If someone else cuts me it is just plain harm. Someone else cutting me is a crime. Me cutting myself is a decision I made. The existence of the concept of self harm does not water down thee concept of harm. Not an ideal fit, but you see where I'm coming from, yes?

[diet_poison]

If the concept of self-censorship is essentially useless, why are people so ardently trying to make it part of the useful/functional definition of "censorship"?