gardosik@ficc.uu.net (tom gardosik) (12/15/89)
This is a repost of a followup that got redirected to news.misc. In article <1989Dec13.105316.17987@twwells.com>, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: > : In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of > : sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted > > :... > > : Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? > > Free speech includes the right to say things offensive. If it did > not, free speech would be a travesty. I'm not sure where the idea came from that you can be as abusive and/or childish as you please simply because you are protected by the relative anonymity of the network. Anything that is offensive said face to face is just as offensive posted. I am not not concerned with abuse of the net, that is really irrelevant to the problem that started this discussion. My concern is letting people believe that they can say whatever they feel like saying as long as they post to the "correct group" or add a smiley face. Sure you can say anything, but be prepared to accept whatever criticism or adverse reaction that results from what you say. Not everything goes! There are some things beyond the pale to some people. It is no defense to simply mutter the incantation "First Amendment Rights" as an excuse to say whatever you please. With all rights come responsibilities. You are responsible for your words, and if you believe that they will not bear repeating to your superiors, don't post them for the world to see. > You were wrong. I disagree. He was right. > Let's be real. Those were jokes. J-O-K-E-S. Words in a computer. > Nothing more. To confuse words with their denoted actions is a > sign of a serious psychological problem. You should see someone > about that. See what I mean? Because of the privacy afforded by the computer (I don't know you, you don't know me), instead of just making whatever contribution you have to make, you add on a gratuitous insult. You cannot do this in real life for very long. -- -- -- I'm always right, and I never lie. -- -- -- I'm always right, and I never lie.
pk2@ukc.ac.uk (P.Kathuria) (12/16/89)
In article <7312@ficc.uu.net> gardosik@ficc.uu.net (tom gardosik) writes a lot of sense. I was suprised to see Bill Wells say: > Let's be real. Those were jokes. J-O-K-E-S. Words in a computer. > Nothing more. To confuse words with their denoted actions is a > sign of a serious psychological problem. You should see someone > about that. I have flamed Mike Tierney on this issue (poster of Compendium of Sorority Girl Jokes, Why Cucumbers are Better Than Men Jokes etc etc) because I cannot see the humour in insults disguised as jokes. Making something into a `joke' is not okay, just bloody naive. I think hettinger@krypton did right, even to mailing the administrator. I don't know why everyone has thrown their hands up in horror saying "He's going to lose his job now" since all that has been done is to provide the administrator with information and it's up to her/him to follow it up. A reasonable course of action would to be take the Offensive Poster aside and say "hey, you're pissing people off, watch it". Freedom of speech, eh? What the frog is rec.humor.funny if not censorship? >> You were wrong. > >I disagree. He was right. Indeed Paola
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (12/22/89)
>>>>> On 15 Dec 89 21:05:05 GMT, pk2@ukc.ac.uk (P.Kathuria) said: > I think hettinger@krypton did right, even to mailing the administrator. > I don't know why everyone has thrown their hands up in horror saying > "He's going to lose his job now" since all that has been done is to > provide the administrator with information and it's up to her/him to > follow it up. A reasonable course of action would to be take the Offensive > Poster aside and say "hey, you're pissing people off, watch it". Why can't hettinger, or anyone, just do that in the first place? If enough people email the person telling them they're being a twit, it'll usually get through. > Freedom of speech, eh? What the frog is rec.humor.funny if not > censorship? That's what rec.humor is for--it's *somewhere else to go*. r.h.f (or any moderated group) *cannot* censor a person completely--the Nature of the Net is such that said person will probably start posting in alt.flame, news.groups, and any other groups that come to mind complaining of censorship (real or imagined). [WARNING: parody follows, sarcasm alert, etc] I have an issue that I've been dealing with for the past couple days that may merit discussion. My apologies if this is an old, tired topic. In news.newusers.questions I read a particularly brutal series of sadistic messages dealing with attempts to censor a poster because they posted offensive material by an individual who will go unnamed. I have spent a little bit of time yesterday and today blasting this person via e-mail, and I wrote to the system administrator at the University where the posting originated. I basically just lodged a protest with the sysad, but also asked that consideration be made of terminating this individual's access to the net, much as this person is attempting to do to others. [Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect of "For those people who would support slavery, I wish them only to become slaves to see that side of things."] Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? I have no wish to infringe an individual's rights but on the other hand I feel compelled to take action, particularly when dealing with self-appointed censors. What would you do? Any opinions, guidance, discussion, etc. would be most appreciated. [See my point, folks? Removal of posting is something I feel should be reserved for chronically *illegal* postings, such as if someone started that damned pyramid-scheme every month despite warnings to stop.] -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> "Many verbal attacks are part of someone's aim to establish their rank in a dominance hierarchy, the same sort of behavior common among nesting fowl." --Daniel Mocsny <dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU>
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (12/23/89)
It's not abuse of the *net* that is really the point at issue here, it is
abuse of someone's sensibilities.
Posting to USENET is much like standing on a soapbox in the middle of a
(very large) public square and shouting at the top of your voice.
If what you say is controversial, you will get some heat. Indeed it is
always prudent to *expect* some heat and to be prepared for it.
If you are deliberately crude, vulgar, offensive, insulting, aggressive etc.
then be prepared to take what you get.
Anyone who feels the right to behave on the extremities of accepted
behaviour should allow other people that right as well. This includes
running squealing to a sysadmin!!
Have a merry Christmas, and, by the way, the concept that a statement should
somehow be treated differently because it is labelled a "joke", is about as
sensible as not taking seriously the person assaulting you because he is
laughing while he is doing it.
--
Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca
Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail)
St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/27/89)
If I could communicate one thing to newusers it would be to please
refrain from screaming censorship at every opportunity.
Censorship is something a government does by invoking its police
powers. It's conceivable that some institutions (such as academic)
have such power over what ideas do or do not get to see the light of
day that their power approaches that of censorship, but even that is
stretching the point. One is still free to exit the institution and
express that opinion and they don't throw you in jail (academic
freedom being a serious and separate issue, but it's not censorship!)
Specifically, moderating a group is not censorship, it's not possible
to "censor" someone by simply eliding their message.
It's editorializing perhaps, and perhaps it makes you angry as all
get-out or is even ill-conceived. But it's NOT CENSORSHIP! No more
than it's censorship that you can't take some time on TV network news
tonight to air your favorite gripe or get a front page column in the
New York Times to speak your mind.
Denying you access to a particular medium is not censorship, denying
you the right to express your thoughts in *any* media, a priori, is
censorship. And that takes police powers.
Too many people have suffered and died over real censorship to have
the concept sullied in the fashion practiced on this net.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzscosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/28/89)
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: I hesitate to extend this already off-the-topic thread, but... }Specifically, moderating a group is not censorship, it's not possible }to "censor" someone by simply eliding their message. What do you think that "censorship" is? The only difference is who the agent is and what the medium is. Either you have the right to speak in a public forum or you don't. Usenet is, far as anyone can tell, pretty much a public forum. Certainly a group's moderator doesn't "own" the newsgroup in the sense that the owner of a radio station does; I would think it was more of a "public trust" on behalf of the usenet community. To the extent that usenet IS a useful, informative, potentially influential medium [this is just a theoretical discussion, right? :-)], we ought to have pretty free and equal access to express our views. There's no "other usenet" we can go buy time on to engage in various similar sorts of discussion --- this is the sandbox we're all playing in, and for all practical purposes it is the only game in town. I think that rather than putting "censor" in quotes, what you really intended to do was something like capitalize it. First off, there is never a problem if you go along with the censors, either be they tyrannical moderators or the police. Things get interesting when you try to evade the censors, and there, I agree, there is a difference --- if you publish unpleasant things in the presence of capital-C-censorship, the man will throw your ass in jail [or worse], whereas on usenet if you forge an "Approved:" posting to get your voice heard, you'll get flamed to death. Clearly we're playing with different stakes. But notwithstanding, the principle is the fundamentally the same --- someone has set themselves up as a gatekeeper on your thoughts. Editors editing for content, style, etc are fine --- that's their job, mostly; editors editing for political correctness cross the line into being lowercase-c-censors. }It's editorializing perhaps, and perhaps it makes you angry as all }get-out or is even ill-conceived. Editorializing is when they do it to *their* words; it is lowercase-c-censorship when they do it to *yours*. }Denying you access to a particular medium is not censorship, denying }you the right to express your thoughts in *any* media, a priori, is }censorship. And that takes police powers. This is just wrong analysis. By your reasoning, to be denied ALL forums except for a 20watt daytime only AM station in Fargo, ND is not being censored. If there is only one medium in question, "any" and "a particular" are the *same*; and if it is a non-private medium it is even more bothersome. Who should have 'throttle control' over what is said on usenet? Is there a political correctness committee? Are newsgroups "awarded" to moderators to become their private forums [go start your own newsgroup if you don't like being censored on *mine*]? Is it OK for a sysadmin to sift through the postings of any or all of the newsgroups and just arbitrarily pump out cancels for ones they don't agree with? But again, you're partly right --- we should remember that this is "just usenet", and we're not talking about real capital-C-censorship. But that doesn't make lowercase-c-censorship any the more palatable [or welcome]. /Bernie\
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (12/29/89)
In article <50134@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
: What do you think that "censorship" is? The only difference is who the
: agent is and what the medium is. Either you have the right to speak in
: a public forum or you don't.
You don't. Contrary to popular opinion, the "right to free speech"
is *not* a right to speak at all! The right to free speech is the
right to speak and *not have force used on you as a consequence*.
Let me elaborate. There are two kinds of rights: "positive" rights
and "negative" rights. Positive rights are the things like
welfare, minimum wages, handicapped parking spaces, etc: things
provided to you which you are not required to earn. Most people,
today, believe that positive rights are what rights are all about.
Mr. Cosell's "right to speak in a public forum" would be a
positive right.
Negative rights are a completely different kettle of fish. A
negative right is simply a right to be unmolested: it poses no
positive requirements of action on another, but rather says that
there are certain things he may not do. Negative rights were the
kind of rights that our constitution's writers generally had in
mind when writing about rights. Examples of negative rights: the
right to not have your life taken by someone else; the right to
choose your own ethics or religion, and to act in accordance with
it (subject to not violating other's negative rights, of course);
the right to retain the products of your efforts.
The Bill of Rights is a partial listing of negative rights and
the limited ways in which the government is permitted to act
against them. The Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no
law...abridging the freedom of speech". Read it carefully. It
does *not* say that "you have the right to speak how you will".
It *does* say that Congress (and as extended by later amendments,
other lawmaking bodies) may not act to restrict your freedom to
speak.
This is a very important point: a positive right to speech would
entail the government attempting to facilitate your speaking.
This has been tried before; it has always failed miserably. And it
must, there is always more to say than medium to say it in. Thus
somebody has to choose *whose* speech to facilitate, and who will
thus be *prevented* from speaking.
Recall the recent flap about "Piss Christ"? As the saying goes:
he who pays the piper calls the tune. And when the government
decides that it is in the business of providing the positive
right of speech it must then pick and choose *who* will speak.
And who will *not*.
And that *is* censorship.
A negative right to free speech only requires that the government
take no notice of your speaking and that you be protected against
force used against you as a consequence of your exercising your
right to free speech.
Every positive right entails infringing someone's negative rights.
A positive right to speak on this net would entail violating *my*
negative right to use my computer as I see fit.
As I've said elsewhere, if it were ever to occur that, solely
because I'm on the net, I could be made to propagate things that
I would choose not to, I would drop out of the net. Instantly.
This is *my* computer. Paid for by *my* effort. You try to *tell*
me how I may use it and I'll tell you where to go. You try to
*make* me use it as you will and I'll treat you like the thug you
are.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.combzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/30/89)
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (Me) >}Specifically, moderating a group is not censorship, it's not possible >}to "censor" someone by simply eliding their message. >I think that rather than putting "censor" in quotes.. No, I put it in quotes correctly, in the sense it was used in that sentence I was illustrating a use of it that I believe is wholly incorrect, the word was being used there merely illustratively, not for its meaning. For the same reason I might write ``Johnny, you can't "write" a wrong, you "right" a wrong''. Thus, ``it's not possible to "censor"''... I object to the use of the word but mimic the usage in quotes for illustrative reasons, ``it's not possible to censor [sic]...'' might have been a better construction perhaps, I think either is fine. In the particular case I am quoting the misusers, so quotes has some rationale, no? They're not just for escaping strings. >Editors editing for content, style, etc are fine --- that's their job, >mostly; editors editing for political correctness cross the line into >being lowercase-c-censors. I think the fact that you even have to introduce this "lowercase-c" (there, I did it again) terminology into your argument makes it suspect. Did you just make this distinction up (uppercase-C vs lowercase-c censorship) or does it derive from some common usage somewhere? Or maybe you thought I was making this distinction (I certainly wasn't, my whole point is that there is no such distinction.) An editor who edits for "political correctness" does not cross the line into being a "lowercase-c-censor" or any other kind of censor. Censorship is something the state does. Editors merely edit, correctly, fairly or otherwise. Do you think the editors of the National Review or Reason or The New Republic etc don't edit for "political correctness"? Of course they do, it's their job. Those publications have a point of view as their primary reason for existence. They can't publish everything, and they can certainly say "this article belongs in that other point-of-view's magazine" and toss it in the can without being a "censor" (shift-lock or otherwise.) >Editorializing is when they do it to *their* words; it is >lowercase-c-censorship when they do it to *yours*. No, tossing an article in the can is editing, I'm not sure that was a good use (by either of us) of "editorializing" (did it again), but that's neither here nor there, I think we both knew what we meant. >This is just wrong analysis. By your reasoning, to be denied ALL >forums except for a 20watt daytime only AM station in Fargo, ND is not >being censored. That's reductio ad absurdum. If some force could, with coordination, deny you access to the media as described they would be the state and you would indeed have been censored. Show me any way within rational bounds that such a thing could happen without it either coming from the state or someone acting as the state for all intents and purposes. However, it's quite possible that an idea is so off-the-wall or badly stated or trite that one might only find audience on that 20watt station. I don't think that's exactly censorship in any sense of the word, even yours. That's just marketing. And, in fact, if that one 20watt station did air your views (and nothing bad happened to you) then you weren't censored. It would be nice to be on network news, but some views only merit such stations. I really don't want to hear about funny going-ons in the Fargo, ND grange association elections on network news, thank you. The key here is coordinated effort, and that can in general only be done by the state and its police powers or some other entity you would accuse of acting as the state. For example, if the contras in Nicaragua executed someone for their anti-Contra writings I'd have to say the Contras were acting as the state having tried, convicted and executed a person, even if they weren't officially recognized as the state. But that's an extreme case and I don't think you can extend that to US newspaper editors (editors in some countries of course act in coordination with the state and censor, they *are* the state and are carrying out the police authority of the state, that's a whole other issue.) Acting as the state when you're not authorized is easy to recognize, it's a criminal offense (censoring, executing, jailing, taxing, etc.) Anything else is merely metaphor. I am honestly enjoying this because I think it's a great example of confusing a metaphor with reality, that's the whole problem here! Censorship as a metaphor for "editing we don't agree with" vs. censorship, the word, meaning "making the publication of a certain view a criminal offense". I think you've lept right into my whole point. Metaphor vs. reality and how confusing the two can damage reality (i.e. people can be fooled into using the anger they have developed for the reality over an instance of the metaphor, they can believe an unreasonable editor is "censoring" them and start a holy war.) >But again, you're partly right --- we should remember that this is >"just usenet", and we're not talking about real capital-C-censorship. >But that doesn't make lowercase-c-censorship any the more palatable [or >welcome]. No, I'm completely right. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/31/89)
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: }From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) }>Editors editing for content, style, etc are fine --- that's their job, }>mostly; editors editing for political correctness cross the line into }>being lowercase-c-censors. }I think the fact that you even have to introduce this "lowercase-c" }(there, I did it again) terminology into your argument makes it }suspect. Did you just make this distinction up (uppercase-C vs }lowercase-c censorship) or does it derive from some common usage }somewhere? Or maybe you thought I was making this distinction (I }certainly wasn't, my whole point is that there is no such }distinction.) But there IS. There are two possible definitions of "censorship" --- one is the definition as a particular type of editorial practice, and the other is the *enforcement* of that practice by the state. The distinction between using minuscule for the basic definition of doing something or other versus reserving the majuscule version to mean "doing that same thing officially" is a fairly common, if informal convention (at least among my correspondents; for example folks are generally careful to distinguish between little-l-libertarians [holders of a particular philsophical position] versus big-L-Libertarians [members of a particular US political movement]]) If you'd rather keep everything brutally long to type and read, I'd be happy to be arguing about the distinctions between "acts of editorial censorship" versus "state sanctioned and enforced acts of editorial censorship". Or since you're gun shy about the c-word, make that first one "editorial activities similar to what editors do when effecting the editorial acts mandated by state-enforced censorship" [and I understand that you consider the "state-enforced" in that last to be redundant... but even if you think it extraneous we can agree to leave it there for emphasis, no?] It would be like my pointing out that while capital-D-Discrimination is quite illegal, lowercase-d-discrimination happens all the time, and it doensn't make the actions any the less reprehensible because they happen to sneak under the wire and be legal. You're right --- it is a *philsophical* and *practical* distinction, not a *legal* one ---- in my usage, the actual editorial activities in BOTH (C|c)ensorship are quite the same; the only difference is in what happens to you if you defy the censor. And similarly... }An editor who edits for "political correctness" does not cross the }line into being a "lowercase-c-censor" or any other kind of censor. }Censorship is something the state does. Editors merely edit, }correctly, fairly or otherwise. Foo. "editing" is a craft made up of a bunch of mostly orthogonal activities. Particular editor can do one or more of them, and particular editorial positions can empower an editor to do one or more of them. To view the craft as "editors merely edit" is about as helpful as defining mathematics as "what mathematicians do". Just as there is a family of editorial activities that come under the heading of "copy editing", there is another family of activities that come under the heading of "censoring". Whether it is state sanctioned or not, and whether it is made clear to the readers at the outset or not, are quite orthogonal matters. The *editorial*process* of censorship is quite clear; whether there are folks in the wings with guns enforcing that editor's "judgement" is quite an orthogonal matter, and doesn't affect the evaluation of the editor's actions. }I am honestly enjoying this because I think it's a great example of }confusing a metaphor with reality, that's the whole problem here! that's funny, because I agree... :-) }Censorship as a metaphor for "editing we don't agree with" vs. }censorship, the word, meaning "making the publication of a certain }view a criminal offense". See how confusing and non-meshed these things can be... I think we're discussing nothing of the kind. You seem to be arguing that the *only* censorship is state-enforced censorship. I'm arguing that the *act* must come first, be defined, understood, and practiced; and the state *instutituionalization* of it comes second. And that leads to precisely the kind of misunderstandings we have here: one can ask "what is it that a(n editorial) censor does to distinguish those acts from other types of editing?" I claim that is a valid question and gets you the obvious answer. And then I can go on to ask "When does it become (in my usage) capital-C-censorship?" and the answer is again obvious (to me at least). In some areas, there is sometimes a word for the act itself to distinguish it from the legal version of it [e.g., lying vs perjury. or hunting vs poaching Another example pops up in this posting later.... see below]. There happens to be no convenient word for "editing for political or moral correctness", and so we run the risk of having confusion over whether we're talking about the editorial act or the state enforcement of that act. In this case, however, no one (except you perhaps) was confusing the two: by calling a particular group's moderator a censor I doubt that anyone would fear that if they forged an Approved posting so as to get past the editorial roadblock, that "the boys" would come by his house and teach him a little lesson. }>But again, you're partly right --- we should remember that this is }>"just usenet", and we're not talking about real capital-C-censorship. }>But that doesn't make lowercase-c-censorship any the more palatable [or }>welcome]. }No, I'm completely right. Hardly, but at the least we can see that you're confident [I hesitate to say arrogant...:-)]. That reprehensible, harmful, antisocial acts happen is just plain fact and just plain reality, regardless of whether the perpetrators enjoy state support or not. The distinction between the acts being state-sanctioned or not is a significant one, but it doesn't make the underlying act much different. If you want to coin a term for "what an editorial censor does" that is not "censorship" that'd be fine, and then you'd have "censorship" defined to be "what happens when the state enforces <what an editorial censor does>". If there was such a disjoint word, this side debate would have never gotten started... the moderator would be accused of "doing what an editorial censor does", and some of us would stand up and say "that's not right --- we don't want our newsgroup moderator's taking that prerogative" and the debate would stay reasonably within the confines of what the expectations within usenet are of moderators and moderated groups. That there is not a particularly convenient separate word, and that using the c-word so ignites you, is unfortunate, but mostly unavoidable. For example, the meaning isn't quite exactly right, but if we were debating racial discrimination instead of censorship we might be able to use "bigotry" for that and then define racial discrimination as "state enforced racial bigory"]. In *that* venue you would have a perfectly find and correct point.. you would ask that we STOP calling it "racial discrimination" because that has all sorts of legal implications and please confine ourselves to using "racial bigotry" and I would agree heartily. As I cay, it is unfortunate that there is no similar pair of terms to allow this discussion to be unambiguous. I used captial-C versus lowercase-c to distinguish the state-act from the private-act; you may not agree with my taking just liberties and coining my own word, and that's fine --- we can discuss that. I think we can, and should, ask whether we want to allow usenet newsgroup moderators to be censors; whether such a newsgroup is their little playground to do with as they please or if they are actually acting on behalf of us all and we should have some say in the "editorial standards" they effect in our name. Perhaps you'd be less hot under the collar if it we only used the latter phrasing [after the semicolon], but I think that few folks misinterpreted the informal usage of the former phrasing to _really_ mean anything other than the latter. /Bernie\
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/31/89)
Ok, the challenge seems to come down to finding a word for common
usage which means what some folks seem to want "censorship" to mean.
First, Webster's 7th on "censorship" and "censor":
--------------------
cen.sor.ship \'sen(t)-s*r-.ship\ n 1: the institution, system, or practice
of censoring or censors 2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3:
exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
1. cen.sor \'sen(t)-s*r\ \sen-'so-r-e--*l, -'so.r-\ n [L, fr. cense-re to
assess, tax; akin to Skt s'am.sati herecites] 1: one of two magistrates of
early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and
conduct 2a: an official who examines publications for objectionable matter
2b: an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material
archaic 3: a faultfinding critic 4: the psychic agency that represses
unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness - cen.so.ri.al aj
2. censor \'sen(t)s-(*-)rin\ vt or cen.sor.ing : to subject to censorship
--------------------
(I think 2a and 2b lean heavily towards my interperetation, I suppose
we can now argue about what "an official" is, 3. is similar to the
other interpretation but is both marked archaic and seems to miss the
essence of suppression of publication.)
But there actually are more accurate words available for removing or
denying publication of material as a non-state act:
--------------------
bowd.ler.ize \'bo-d-l*-.ri-z, 'bau.d-\ vt [Thomas Bowdler -1825 E editor] :
to expurgate (as a book) by omitting or modifying parts considered
indelicate
ex.pur.gate \'ek-sp*r-.ga-t\ \.ek-sp*r-'ga--sh*n\ \'ek-sp*r-.ga-t-*r\ vt [L
expurgatus, pp. of expurgare, fr. ex- + purgare to purge] : to cleanse of
something morally harmful, offensive, or erroneous; esp : to expunge
objectionable parts from before publication or presentation -
ex.pur.ga.tion n
--------------------
I vote for "expurgate" and its other forms as the correct word for
what people are often trying to make "censor" mean. No one can
remember the spelling of bowdlerize anyhow (it took me a few hits to
look it up.)
It might beg an adverb to fend off its seemingly positive nature, as
in "The moderator has flippantly expurgated articles..." (arbitrarily,
randomly, unfairly, mindlessly, "expurgated with odious intent", etc.)
And let's leave "censorship" to the purview of the state where it
belongs.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzsmara@panix.UUCP (Mara Chibnik) (12/31/89)
May I suggest that, fascinating as this discussion of censorship is,
news.newusers.questions is not the optimial forum for it?
We may be teaching newcomers to the net exactly those habits we'd
really prefer they not adopt. 1/2 ;-)
--
SOMEDAY SOON I SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECEIVE MAIL AT
cmcl2!panix!mara mara@panix.uucp apple!panix!mara
MEANWHILE, YOU CAN FIND ME AT
..!cmcl2!{ccnysci,cucard,hombre}!dasys1!mara
Mara Chibnik
Life is too important to be taken seriously.