Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6178603" data-attributes="member: 8461">I disagree; I think that nine times out of ten, when someone is talking about censorship, they're discussing the ethical implications of supressing someone else's freedom of expression.Again, this is a focus on the legal ability of one entity's ability to control another person's free expression; it looks at whether or not someone has the authority to do something, ignoring the question of whether or not it's right to do it.It also presumes that the censored individual can "go elsewhere," which is oftentimes not the case (e.g. threat of civil action, non-competition clauses, etc).Your supposition that this "usually" - that is, the majority of the time - involves an arm of the state is, at best, unsupported. As it stands, there are plenty of examples to the contrary.In 2007, Rockstar Games attempted to publish their video game Manhunt 2. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (a private organization) gave the game an Adults Only (AO) rating. Because Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all had policies that they wouldn't publish AO games on their consoles - as well as Wal-Mart having a policy against selling AO-rated games - this effectively meant that the game was censored in America, as Rockstar was not in a position to sell the game themselves for PC-only consumption, either physically through the mail or over the internet. (The game was released after the more controversial elements had been bowdlerized and the game was given a Mature rating.)In 2010, when WikiLeaks published the Collateral Murder video and the American diplomatic cables, Mastercard and Visa, along with PayPal and Amazon, severed all ties to Wikileaks, severely hindering the non-profit organization's ability to raise money. This despite no criminal charges having been filed against WikiLeaks for their activity (though, to be fair, the U.S. government did urge several of these organizations to stop working with them). Collaboration among the large private financial enterprises was therefore used to try and censor an organization.The power of private enterprises to censor individuals and organizations - particularly by acting in concert - is a very real threat to people's ability to (meaningfully) exercise their right to free expression.</blockquote>

Verification