ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) (01/15/91)
Carolyn Kotlas, writing to the ethics@uncecs.edu mailing list, says, in part: > > Not every case has a tidy and satisfying solution. The ragged edges are > those questions that never quite get answered and continue to pop up. I've > collected some of these questions here to start this discussion. Again, > please feel free to join in with your own questions...and, of course, any > answers you may have, too! > > -- General questions > Just what do we mean by censorship? Is censorship a good, bad, or > neutral thing? > Does cutting off the flow of messages in an overloaded communication > system constitute censorship? > What should be done when giving users the freedom to communicate any > messages causes some users to remove themselves from the forum? > Should we care if some users are offended by some of the messages? > In questions of what constitutes obscenity in our society, local > community standards are often applied. When the entire world > constitutes the electronic communication community, whose standards > can be applied? Carolyn, once again, brings some good questions to our attention. Having observed and participated in lots of the discussions on Usenet, here are some of my particular answers for this part of Carolyn's question set. Censorship: the act of suppressing an expression or action that is objectionable. Specifically, expressions that are "immoral, profane, seditious, heretical or otherwise offensive." This can also apply to information "harmfull to one's country's or organization's interests". There is a strong tendancy in some quarters to limit the term censorship to "official" or "governmental" actions, but the generic definition does not support this narrow view. Censorship, per se, is not good or bad, but it is not neutral either. Neutrality implies that there can be a take it or leave it attitude about it, and this issue is more likely to cause strong polarized reactions. On the Electronic Frontier (EF), censorship becomes both harder and easier to perform. It is harder to completely control the contents of all the channels of communication, and information has more ways to be heard despite attempts to suppress it. On the other hand, on a controlled channel, the information can often be suppressed completely and without a trace of the suppression. Censorship and Bandwidth Simply cutting down the number of messages to limit bandwidth consumed is not censorship. That is, as long as all messages are limited in the same manner and fashion, without regard to their content. Once the door opens to examining content and/or context, the waters get very muddy, fast! There seems to be a general agreement that a private institution has the right to limit the use of private resources to endeavors that further the goals of that organization. As long as this limitation occurs with broad cuts, no one seems to have much difficulty. (E.g. cutting all "rec" newsgroups or all "soc.culture" newsgroups seems ok, but cutting "soc.culture.vietnam" and leaving "soc.culture.celtic" causes problems.) Some defenders of private property rights object to using the term censorship for private organizations' actions of this type. Others say "yes, its censorship (if you insist) but its also our machine and money." As a definite answer, its a MAYBE. I tend to call it censorship, and grant that private entities have the right to censor when their resources are involved. It becomes a whole other question when the entity enters into a co-operative arrangement with others to provide services. If the argreement is with a governmental or public entity, then part of the co-operative agreement is likely to be the loss of complete control over the resources used. It also opens up the private entity to the justified scrutiny of the public into its actions in regards to the co-operative agreements. Offensive information The question of offensive speech (where speech is interpreted broadly to include electronic communications) is always a delicate one. American culture attempts to draw a line between speech that is "merely offensive" and speech that is "harmful, obscene or treasonous". Other cultures and governments draw the lines in different terms or different ways. It is very hard to "offend no one" and this results in very little of substance or debate occurring. On the other hand, it is difficult to say that "this we will accept and no more" and then hold the line in the same spot for ever. History has clear lessons on the issue. Obviously, one MUST balance the desire to not be harmed and the desire to allow free expression. On the EF, this balance can be achieved by allowing the individual the options to filter what is seen. This, I believe, is the correct answer - each person can choose what they will "hear". If they cannot manage the technology to prevent themselves from receiving the offensive information, that is their problem and they should not be allowed to force their filters on everyone. Obscenity is in the mind of the beholder This brings us to the question of "obscenity". It is an Americanism that allows "local standards" to define obscenity. Given that individuals have the means to control the information that they receive, then there is no need to invoke the god of community standards to limit the origination of information. It does point up an interesting question of being sure that the receiver of the information has enough information to assure that they will not be offended by something that may slip past their filter(s). There are very few cases that I can imagine where the recipient has no warning or control over the receipt of a message. Actually, I can imagine none! In every case, the information is available to be able to filter out practically anything one could wish! For some people, there would be little information left to receive. -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>