[ 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

[(Anonymous)]

I think if I were to point out that that considering terrorists an institution could spawn the same argument over definitions we are already having over the definition of censorship, you might get what I am saying?

What defines an institution in your view? Because I would say if we count terrorist organisations as an institution then it would seem that any group of people with a common (and that's a loose definition of common to begin with) goal counts as an institution.

Which if we accept that definition means that censorship can come from an almost limitless source.

And yes, it may be ineffective censorship because these magazines still exist, but if you think they will ever post a cartoon like that again without a serious sweat about it, well you're wrong. They have censored that one type of expression (The discussion of weather anything of value was lost is another thing, but its not a good thing when pictures can be expected to be met with bullets.)

I do not thing shooting up Charlie Hebdo counted as discussion. I think what is happening here is a discussion (a less pleasant discussion since we're calling eachothers ideas idiotic now, but you're not putting any more pressure on me than an exchange of words, so this is not censorship) If you were to start following me all over the internet going on about this discussion over and over, calling my work to get me fired, bringing all your buddy along to shame me for my idiocy, then you would be trying to silence me with something more than a simple discussion, and that would be an attempt to censor me.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I think if I were to point out that that considering terrorists an institution could spawn the same argument over definitions we are already having over the definition of censorship, you might get what I am saying?

What you don't seem to understand is that I get what you're saying. It's still wrong. It doesn't matter how much you try to shine that turd, separating institutional power from censorship so that you can yell "censorship" indiscriminately in ways that confuse it with criticism and comment is wrong.

If we're going to talk about terrorism as censorship, we need to talk about terrorism as part of heavily funded and organized ideological movements. If we're going to talk about harassment as censorship, we need to talk about levels of power and privilege and abuse of power that allows that to happen.