Here's an interesting little scifi story

[parallaxicality]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

It's a difficult question; I have to say. At first, my liberal sensibilities were inflamed by this vision of the future, and I felt shocked and ashamed that our society, with its extolling the virtues of free speech, had no enshrined "right to read."

But then I thought about it, and I realised just how many things which we take for granted every day are protected by our ability to restrict others' right to read. From the privacy of our mail to our ability to stop our kids reading pornograpy. I found the idea of a data-access free for all almost as frightening as the vision painted above. It seems this new Information Ocean in which the human race now swims offers us only two visions of the future: one in which information is absolutely controlled, and one in which information is utterly free. Is there another way?

[Ken G]

Yes, there is another way. Copyright laws are designed to protect the right to read-- by making it profitable to write. Of course if they went too far, they could become a barrier to reading, as in the story. There is also a big difference between blanket censorship and simply recognizing that some forums are appropriate venues for certain types of information. For example, this forum chooses not to discuss politics. That isn't censorship, because there are more appropriate places to discuss that. Which is exactly why I'll say no more!

[publius]

It is important to appreciate that censorship is something government does, not private individuals exercising their own rights. That is, the goons with guns come and use force to prevent you from saying something or reading or listening to something someone else says.

For example, the music industry and Hollywood will always say they are respecting freedom of speech when called on things like gangster rap music and other cultural rot. "We can't censor an artist", the will say. Of course, they are profiting handsomely from that artist (even more so than the artist himself in most cases).

And that's just pure **. The First Amendment is a wonderful thing. But it goes both ways. It does not give you a right to use someone's else stage. Indeed, the same right to speech allows you to control your own stage. It's one and the same.

And that aside, it's a very different thing to use your right to free speech to criticize what someone else says, and even say they ought not to say it.

People are quick to use "free speech" as a shield to try to give them blanket immunity from any responsibility for the consequences of what they say.

-Richard

[publius]

Yes, there is another way. Copyright laws are designed to protect the right to read-- by making it profitable to write. Of course if they went too far, they could become a barrier to reading, as in the story. There is also a big difference between blanket censorship and simply recognizing that some forums are appropriate venues for certain types of information. For example, this forum chooses not to discuss politics. That isn't censorship, because there are more appropriate places to discuss that. Which is exactly why I'll say no more!

Ken,

Copyright *law* can go to far, and is being abused now in my opinion (and note again, this is basically *government* action, the guys who can use force, in this case enforcing some copyright judgement).

I've read several cases where big companies have used the Digital Millenium copyright act to silence critics. In one case, someone got a hold of some internal documents that a company didn't want the public to read and published them on a web site. The company said those damning documents were copyrighted and threatened the ISP under the DMC Act.

-Richard

[JohnD]

Publius,
Censorship is not only a state function.
Private individuals can and do try to censor what we read, see or hear.

In 2005, on British TV the BBC 2 channel was to broadcast "Jerry Springer - the Opera". An outfit called 'Christian Voice' used petitions, demonstrations and High Court injunctions to stop the transmisison. They failed.

I'm sure you can think of other examples of private, not state, censorship.

John

[publius]

John,

How can a private entity, of its own, *force* you not to say, or to say, anything?

The BBC is actually state-owned, or at least funded, anyway, isn't it? That changes things in your example a bit, and might explain how the courts got involved. But let's forget about that and just use the example of say, a completely private magazine.

Say they are going to publish something some group doesn't like. That group gets petitions up and threatens the publisher with boycotts. Say the publisher relents and doesn't publish.

Now, is that censorship, would you say? Who made the ultimate decision not to publish? It was the owner. Now, was any force involved? Would he have gone to jail if he published? Would the gendarmes show up in the middle of the night? No.

The only thing involved there is a private group saying we don't won't you to publish that, and if you do, we'll be mad at you and won't patronize your advertisers. All of that is nothing but private individuals exercising their own rights as they see fit.

-Richard

[Ken G]

I would say that the formal point publius is making is quite true, but as with anything, there are always "gray areas" in practice. For example, let's say you are an educator (we could make it at a private school to avoid the government issue), and you are graduating biology majors into the real world. Imagine a majority of the parents of your students exercise their right to say what they think their children should learn, to the point that they threaten to withdraw their children from your school if you use books that include evolution, say, then what do you do? If you use the books, you are not thrown in jail but you are fired from your job because the school loses a bunch of money. Now that situation might not formally be labeled censorship, for just the reasons you mention, but in a more general sense of the term I suspect you would feel very much the same way as a victim of governmental censorship. You would feel that you know better than the parents what biology students need to know, and you might make that stand for the good of the students, but if you lost your job in the process you would feel like a victim of infuriatingly foolish thought control. You would want to say that although the parents have the economic power to withdraw their kids, they are still hurting their children by censoring what they are allowed to learn. If not that word, you'd want another one with the same sting, the same clout, even if it is not formally correct.

[publius]

Ken,

There are a lot of different, and even subtle things going on in your example.

First, let's turn it around. Suppose we have a teacher who is an ardent creationist and thinks he ought to be able to teach that. Or maybe not go that far, and say we have a credentialed biology teacher who is religious and wants to talk about how he thinks God set it all in motion or some such. If they were fired, they would certainly feel that was thought control, too.

My point is, there is always going to be control, and a lot of it, over what is taught in a school. And there has to be. The only issue is if that control is proper and reasonable. If you're teaching science, you want to teach science. And that means you have to define what is science, and stick to teaching only that. And likewise, some religious seminary is going to have its own rules on what theology it deems proper.

And now, about the parents aspect of that. Do parents have an absolute right to control what their children learn? Well, at first blush, you might say "yes", but it can't work that way if only for practical reasons. Basically, I think of things roughly like this: when you send your child to school, you are contracting for them to receive "an education". Basically, the educators decide what an education is, not the parents. Now, when you have a captive audience -- legally, every child must be educated -- that changes things a bit.

But putting that aside, at the college level, the college decides what constitutes the education it is going to give. If the parents (or the near adult now) kids don't like it, they can go elsewhere or nowhere at all.

So, if a kid wants a degree in Biology, he learns what biologists think is biology. If the parents don't like it, tough. And that applies to the professors to. They will teach what it considered biology, and if they don't like it, tough for them as well. Of course, you want a professor to have wiggle room, academic freedom, but even there, it is the academy itself that decides just how much wiggle room one should have.

And I'll add that most of the time, boycotts usually backfire. Businesses certainly don't want contoversy (well, in general, some of them thrive on it, like the media, as that's what their really selling), and they will go to ridiculous lengths internally to avoid it. But in general, when some pressure group goes nuts, they will engender sympathy for the targets and it backfires.

-Richard

[Ken G]

I agree that not all versions of thought control should be considered censorship-- someone has to control what gets taught in school, for example, and even school boards are limited by the law. It is natural in every situation to identify what is the appropriate channel for determining those decisions. So we have the general issue of what channels should society accept and what channels should it take pains to avoid, and the specific issue of what are we going to label as censorship. I'm saying that even if the formal meaning has to do with governmental control, the common usage has more to do with misuse of power-- any power.

You are saying that the definition relates to who is misusing the power-- it has to be government. It seemed like you were suggesting that only government can misuse power, for all others are simply exercising power, so I'm not clear if you are saying that only government can censor because it is the only thing with the power to do so, or because it is the only thing with the ability to misuse power. But I think that although the government has an immense power, and a great capability to misuse it, there are other places where power appears, and also the misuse of it. To me, the most effective use of the term censorship is an effort to identify the misuse of power to stifle certain types of expression, whereas the proper use of power, any power, is to identify proper and improper venues for each type of expression. If we want to restrict our definition of censorship to what government does, then we'll need another word with similar visceral impact.

[publius]

I guess the best way to put my point would be this. Consider North Korea (or any totalitarian regime). That is censorship. Say or listen to something the government doesn't like, and you wind up in prison at best, or with a 9mm brain hemorrhage at worst.

My point is I get a little disgusted at those in free societies who whine about "censorship" for some trivial thing where basically someone is doing nothing but controlling what is said on his own stage, which is nothing compared to that. It's like some guy showing up in the emergency room with a stubbed toe, and thinking he ought to have equal priority to someone having a heart attack.

-Richard

[Ken G]

Yes, I completely agree that "censorship" ends up being a kind of "sour grapes" lament from people who don't like to be told what to do, like toddlers. The term should certainly be reserved for abuses of power that rob underprivileged groups of their voice, or rob a society as a whole from value in the interests of maintaining that power.

[Len Moran]

I guess the best way to put my point would be this. Consider North Korea (or any totalitarian regime). That is censorship. Say or listen to something the government doesn't like, and you wind up in prison at best, or with a 9mm brain hemorrhage at worst.

My point is I get a little disgusted at those in free societies who whine about "censorship" for some trivial thing where basically someone is doing nothing but controlling what is said on his own stage, which is nothing compared to that. It's like some guy showing up in the emergency room with a stubbed toe, and thinking he ought to have equal priority to someone having a heart attack.

-Richard

One can only of course agree with this, but as always there is a sliding scale. If your luck is down somewhat, in any area, you can always say to youself, well someone is far worse off than I am in some poverty stricken African state (for example). But such a comparison does nothing to actually physically help you, and it cannot deny the validity of your predicament within the context of your immediate environment and the effect such a predicament may have on your prospects and hopes that are defined by that environment.

So a subtle form of "tow the line or your are out", cannot be compared to your example like for like, but on a sliding scale, for that person, and others in similar circumstances, within the context of their own hopes and aspirations in their own environment, it is a form of censorship. Now if it is only confined to one individual because of their outlandish views, then in the overall scheme of things, it perhaps is neither here nor there. But in a more subtle way, across the board, such "censorship" perhaps can have an unknowing immediate effect, but in the longer term is instrumental in establishing modes of authority. I suppose you could argue that such "censorship" is part and parcel of the human condition, and it is the means by which modes of authority establish themselves, but that still leaves the sliding scale in place and the effect it has on free thought/speech to a lesser or greater degree.

[Fazor]

The right to free speech is perhaps one of the most misunderstood rights. Not all speech is protected. For instance, speech that incites others to violence is not protected. A good example is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. That is harmful, and is not protected. It gives the right to speech to those that want to listen, but does not give the right to force your speech on those that don't. '

For some reason people seem to "learn" at an early age that "free speech" means they can say whatever, whenever, where ever without repercussion. That is simply not true.

[Ken G]

Yes, I like to think of it as there being an appropriate venue for every type of expression, so violations of free speech involve interdicting an appropriate venue, not determining that a particular venue is inappropriate for a particular type of speech.

[NEOWatcher]

That is harmful, and is not protected. It gives the right to speech to those that want to listen, but does not give the right to force your speech on those that don't. '

That's my interpretation. " or abridging the freedom of speech" not the freedom to speak. Maybe Gillianren can help with the official difference between speech and speak, but my interpretation is more of oration.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
Many people never hear the word "peaceably". And I think this is where Fazor's interpretation fits mine. Go ahead and say anything you want, but if you create a disturbance doing it, you have not done it peaceably.

The problem comes when people are "disturbed" or "offended" by something.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Free data is not unambiguously good. I am told that in the USA, a public authority is not allowed to charge more than the cost of reproduction when it sells information it may have. I believe this is why we in NW Europe have much better maps than the USA - our mapping agencies are allowed to include the cost of surveying, etc, in selling maps, and therefore have much more money to be able to make the maps in the first place.

[Fazor]

Free data is not unambiguously good. I am told that in the USA, a public authority is not allowed to charge more than the cost of reproduction when it sells information it may have. I believe this is why we in NW Europe have much better maps than the USA - our mapping agencies are allowed to include the cost of surveying, etc, in selling maps, and therefore have much more money to be able to make the maps in the first place.

I don't think I can agree with this without seeing some evidence. First off, we have some very great maps available from both private and public organizations. I live in a small city (not a metro area) and our county auditor's website has avalable detailed maps of the county, plotted out exactly by parsel, with basic building information (layout, living area, etc) for all private buildings. This is all 100% free.

Transversly, to get a police accident report from this city it is free for fax, $0.05/page for copies. Yet in Columbus it's like $0.75/page. In pickerington (small suburban city of columbus) it's $1.05/page. You can't tell me those accurately represent the actual cost of providing the reports.

[NEOWatcher]

Transversly, to get a police accident report from this city it is free for fax, $0.05/page for copies. Yet in Columbus it's like $0.75/page.

I've never considered the people in Columbus (government, of course) know the cost of anything.

[Fazor]

I've never considered the people in Columbus (government, of course) know the cost of anything.

Good point. I just think it's funny that the small suburb PD, which covers 2 square miles, charges the most for reports.

Of course, I also think it's funny that they have two off-road vehicles and bicycle patrols for such a small and completely developed area (it's all subdivisions and strip malls).

Guess they have to fund it somehow :P

[Ivan Viehoff]

I don't think I can agree with this without seeing some evidence. First off, we have some very great maps available from both private and public organizations. I live in a small city (not a metro area) and our county auditor's website has avalable detailed maps of the county, plotted out exactly by parsel, with basic building information (layout, living area, etc) for all private buildings. This is all 100% free.

Transversly, to get a police accident report from this city it is free for fax, $0.05/page for copies. Yet in Columbus it's like $0.75/page. In pickerington (small suburban city of columbus) it's $1.05/page. You can't tell me those accurately represent the actual cost of providing the reports.

I suspect you may not know what you're missing. And since you don't know what you are missing, you may not be aware how useful it would be if you had it.

I'm happy to believe that US authorities generally have mapping suitable for engineering and planning activities at suitable scales, and make it available free on the net. That is rather different from maps useful for the ordinary activities of ordinary people. In Northern European countries like UK, France, Germany, etc, you can buy printed-on-paper topographic maps at 1:25 000 of the entire country, showing relief and rights of way. That is what you need for taking your Sunday walk without getting lost, and for outdoor activities such as off-road cycling, trekking etc, etc. There are also series at 1:50 000 or 1:100 000 (depending upon the country) which are useful for on-road cycling, local navigation by car (you'd often get badly lost with 1:250 000 maps in Europe if you are following local roads), and hill-walking in areas of less complicated geography.

When I look at what is for sale in the USA, eg, the lists on OMNIMAP little of this nature is available for most states - just selected areas like national parks. Air photos at 1:24 000 (what a bizarre number) of the entire country are available on CD, but not much use for the hill walker. Perhaps because you've never seen it you don't know what you are missing.

The following is an example of some 1:50 000 mapping of the UK. Just some random part of Yorkshire I landed on. (I know it says 1:25 000 on the screen, but it is merely enlarged 1:50 000 scale mapping; the true 1:25 000 mapping has much more detail, in particular the field boundaries that make navigating your walk so much more possible).
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.c...=1&scale=25000
As you can see, the map is densely covered in footpaths (red dashes) as well as local roads. The red lozenges are a way-marked long distance footpath. The red dots are some routes usable by bicycle.

Possibly in many parts of the US this level of detail would be unnecessary, and making country walks out of your back door or a from a location 15 mins drive away is just not the feasible option that it is in much of Europe.