|
Where I went to graduate school I took a few classes in retoric or the art of argument. One of the things that we learned is to base arguments around definitions and Miriam and Webster Dictionary is generally the arbiter of defintions, in other words what ever Miriam and Webster says a word means thats what it means.
Now for this word sensorship, its the removal of materiel of any sort becuase of the fact that it is objectionable to that person.
Please note that the definion makes no reference to government in any way so removal of a ebook can be sensorship if its done by amazon as described here. The point that needs to be argued is did amazon remove the ebook becuase it was objectionable to the company.
One thing is never argued at all, facts. Facts are verifiable and can not be argued. In this case the facts are: 1) the definition of the word sensor; 2) Amazon removed the ebook from the catalog. What remains is where the arguments are, why did amazon remove the ebook?
If they removed it becuase they found it objectionable then yes that is sensorship, but supose the book was dropped becuase there was not enough space on the server and the book was to be moved to a new server then no that is not sensorship.
|