Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb
....companies are part of the process that creates ethical prescriptions because they do first what is then considered "proper"...
|
I don't think people take their moral cues from retailers.
Consumers expect retailers to behave ethically and to reflect their values. When the retailer fails to do so, they often get taken to task for it.
There is also little consensus among retailers about what content it wants to sell and/or promote. A Christian retailer will offer vastly different content than an S&M shop. Which one is imposing its "ethical restrictions" on the public?
In terms of overtly influencing public opinion, that's the domain of "the media" -- news, radio, op-eds, pundits and bloggers. But even these entities are well within their rights to exercise editorial controls. You may not like Fox News, and clearly that network is pushing highly specific political agendas, but ultimately if they do not want to hire Rachel Maddow then that is an
editorial choice and not an act of censorship.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by johnnyb
That means, if we don't want democratic freedom to cease to exist, it is inevitable to consider non-governmental organization (commercial or non-commercial) as a vital and inevitable part of the chain of legislation...
|
No, it certainly is not.
Generally speaking is not an instance of democracy or liberty to force a company to sell a product. It is not "undemocratic" for a Kosher butcher to refrain from selling pork chops -- even if that is the only butcher shop in a 10, 20 or 50 mile radius. Nor is it democratic to force the butcher to sell pork chops when he refuses to do so on ethical grounds.
The consequence of your line of argument would result in every retailer being required to sell whatever any vendor demands -- for if the retailer refuses, in theory that is "censorship." That is an utterly unworkable position.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by johnnyb
Even as a retailer they DO influence ethics that means that in this respect, they ARE the street corner as far as censorship is concerned...
|
And yet, Walmart and Apple both redline pornographic content, far more drastically than Amazon.
How would you require this, by the way? Do you intend to protest Walmart until they carry incest erotica? Pass a law saying that Walmart is required to carry every book ever written, no matter how offensive management and customers alike find the material?
And whose ethics, exactly, should we follow? One person may strongly value "free expression," and another may find that a specific topic (e.g. incest erotica) is fundamentally unethical and should be shoved out of the public arena by any legal means possible.
Your prescription is unworkable and restricts the liberty of the retailers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by johnnyb
What I was trying to show was that it is impossible to tell where censorship begin because there simply cannot exist a clear dividing line...
|
I won't say the line is "clear," but:
"Censorship" = government suppression of content and/or speech
"Editing" = private organizations limiting speech in the outlets they own or manage