Ailanto : Can nongovernmental entities censor?

After solving my posting problem, I was finally able to discuss this newsgroup issue on the newsgroup. The FAQ for mensa.talk.misc mistakenly claims, twice, that Only governments censor. But my thread quickly split into two. It began with my observation that the statement Only governments censor is false. The reply was You can argue that all you like, but you are wrong because we are NOT "Officials" and thus cannot censor.... and I'm still wondering what that has to do with my statement! So... the thread split into two, but all tangled up together, and while I try to stick to the one, they keep trying to drag me into the other, and sometimes I just can't help replying to that one too.

To begin, please read censor, as used on the web. Though this was from a later post, it was my attempt to illustrate usage of the word censor in modern English, and I think that it proves my point well. Those references span decades, demonstrating that this usage is not merely recent.

7.  Q:  Isn't moderation censorship?
    A:  Only governments censor.  You can post anything you want to the
        Internet, but you may not be able to post it in our group.
        Besides, the moderation of the mensa.* groups is mostly
        automated and very light (see question #2, above).  If you want
        to know why these groups are moderated, have a look at
        rec.org.mensa.

12. Q:  How dare you kill file me!  That's censorship!
    A:  Only governments can censor.  Freedom of speech does not
        guarantee anyone will listen.

7.  Q:  Isn't moderation censorship?
    A:  No, it's moderation.  You can post anything you want to the
        Internet, but you may not be able to post it in our group.
        Besides, the moderation of the mensa.* groups is mostly
        automated and very light (see question #2, above).  If you want
        to know why these groups are moderated, have a look at
        rec.org.mensa.

12. Q:  How dare you kill file me!  That's censorship!
    A:  Censorship prevents you from publishing. A kill file helps
        you ignore something that somebody else has published. That's
        the difference. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that
        anyone will listen!

Not only would this eliminate the error, it would also improve 12A by highlighting the distinction between censorship (or moderation) and killfiles.

It is interesting to note that during these discussions, only two people, to whom I usually refer as [X] and [Y], disagreed with me. Can you guess who they are? The two who control the FAQ! But since 30 January 2001, my name resides in both their killfiles, so I guess that's that! [X] still believes that everybody agrees with her and nobody with me, but if you follow the threads, you'll find that only [Y] agreed with her, several agreed with me, and the rest were silent. I can only assume that she regards their silence as agreement with her position. And we did discover there near the end of the proposal thread that there was once again a glitch with the STUMP process; several folks pointed out that they were receiving her posts, but not mine. Veeeerrrrry interesting!

Much later I realized that there was additional, although indirect, Mensa-related support for my position, support which once again ties these issues together. During the PICS controversy, I had coined the term picsware to describe software that performs that sort of "filtering" function. Although this class of software is commonly called censorware (even by those who sell it!), those who favored the PICS solution (primarily the Mensans who had selected PICS) complained that the term censorware carried with it an implicit and undeserved negative connotation. The important point in re this discussion is that they did not claim that the term censorware was inappropriate because only governments censor, which would have been the definitive argument, had it been true. But they didn't, because it wasn't!

A couple of years later I was leafing through some old Mensa Bulletins and came across the following text in the Chairman's Column of April 1995...

The newest dictionary we have in the house, the American Heritage third edition, defines the verb to censor only as "to examine and expurgate". I might also add that the American Heritage's definition of censor has not changed in 23 years. In its noun form, censor is defined as "a person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable".

That was also the issue that announced that "as of March 13, 1995, American Mensa, Ltd., began conducting its business from office space in downtown Fort Worth, Texas"... and, a few pages later, a proposed change to the Bylaws which would make that move legal. Sheesh! But that's a whole 'nuther story.

La difino de diktatoro fontas el la Vortaro de Kabe (1911), kaj kredeble originis en la franca vortaro Petit Larousse, kvankam aliaj vortaroj de tiu epoko ofertas similajn difinojn. Okaze de krizo en antikva Romio oni elektis diktatoron por estri la ŝtaton por sesmonata periodo: tiu provizoreco estis esenca elemento de la ofico. Verŝajne ĝi restis esenca parto de la koncepto ĝis la frua 20a jarcento, kiam oni komencis apliki la terminon diktatoro al ĉiuspecaj tiranoj. Sed tiaj nuancaj senco-modifoj ne facile atingas la vortarojn.

Now, dictionary.com says that a dictator was 2. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency. And remember, the foundation of [X]'s argument was that a censor was 4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.

Thus I was amused to see both [X] and [Y] referring to Saddam Hussein as a dictator in mensa.talk.misc a few days later! If I'd been in the mood for an argument, I might have instigated a thread something like this...

Me: But Hussein can't be a dictator! A dictator is an ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency!

[X] or [Y] (probably both): Don't be ridiculous. A dictator is blah blah blah... I don't care what you want it to mean blah blah blah... Now it means blah blah blah...

Me: Ah, I see. Perhaps, then, we could reopen the censor issue...

But I wasn't, and I didn't. And I also refrained from pointing out that a Dessert Storm would have been quite tasty!