Mummy wrote:
Constraints all around us.....
are they bad?
Post by patriotsaint »
Use of unauthorized force. Force is still used. If it is used without authorization, then the law should provide you protection/remedy. This scenario is not about censorship, but rather about a crime committed against you and your property.Mummy wrote:True....but there are hackers that can accomplish that (without government).patriotsaint wrote:He simply meant that government wasn't the only entity that could use force to censor, but that God has done so as well. At least that's the meaning I got from what he said.
Edit: Yes mummy, the government is the people, but when acting collectively it is government. I don't personally have the power to pull the plug on any of your websites, and neither do I have the right to force you to publish my viewpoints if you do not wish to do so.
If the law can be enforced (always comes down to force!).patriotsaint wrote:Use of unauthorized force. Force is still used. If it is used without authorization, then the law should provide you protection/remedyMummy wrote:True....but there are hackers that can accomplish that (without government).patriotsaint wrote:He simply meant that government wasn't the only entity that could use force to censor, but that God has done so as well. At least that's the meaning I got from what he said.
Edit: Yes mummy, the government is the people, but when acting collectively it is government. I don't personally have the power to pull the plug on any of your websites, and neither do I have the right to force you to publish my viewpoints if you do not wish to do so.
I've heard of a few business owners that were censored by employees. Couple of them permanently!patriotsaint wrote:Yes, and private property is in play in each of your scenarios.
At work, you don't own the place, and therefore don't have the right to use it as a venue for personal expression. Same goes for Church.
If you were the owner of a business, the only time you would be censored would be by government (ie sexual harassment etc)
Post by patriotsaint »
Does it matter whether its "valid" or not....or who the "controlling" body happens to be? Or whether we like it or not?patriotsaint wrote:We're getting into some fairly broad definitions of censorship. For my posts I am using the definition that follows:
Censorship: suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
"As determined by a government or other controlling body" is key. Just as I explained above, not everything you have mentioned is censorship. A hacker taking down your website is a crime, not valid censorship. Self control is exactly that, not censorship as per the definition stated above. Using a definition that encompasses everything you've discussed confuses the issue and results in us looking at endless scenarios rather than principles.
I believe the principles are as follows:
1. Publishers, bloggers, web site owners, and producers have a right to use their property as they see fit.
2. None of us have the right to force individuals listed in point 1 to use their private property as a vehicle for the expression of our views in the name of free speech.
Post by patriotsaint »
Post by patriotsaint »
Where are you trying to go?patriotsaint wrote:Not trying to censor you in the slightest LOL! Just trying to solidify a definition for clarity's sake. We won't get far in a discussion if we are talking about completely different definitions (as we've proved so far during this interchange).
Post by HeirofNumenor »
HeirofNumenor wrote:Okay I missed something here...President Packer's Oct 2010 General Conference talk was censored? How, and in what way, and what parts?
I was siting in the audience taking notes when he spoke at BYU in Nov 88 on evolution, and March 92 where he touched on abortion and sexual relations in marriage. Funny how BYU swears he never spoke there those years, and you cannot find those talks.
Post by HeirofNumenor »
LDSFreedomForum.com and its admin / moderators do not necessarily agree with all content posted by users of this forum.
The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein.