Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg
Absolutely it is not. Because there is no threat of physical force behind it. Without a physical means of enforcement - it isn't censorship.
There is a reason wikipedia is not in any sense an accepted academic source. You just revealed one case.
One is free to say what one wants. However, net being free to do so on another person's dime does not now and never has constituted censorship.
An author can write whatever they want. But having written what they wanted does not give them any sort of right to demand that another person or entity then market or distribute that work. Not even if they have a certain customer who would buy it.
There is not one thing preventing the authors in question from self publishing and self distributing (however ill equipped they might be for such endeavors). If the government (or a lynch mob) were standing buy to seize the product and prevent dissemination of it - That would constitute censorship.
The difference used to be taught in the schools. But then they used to teach basic math too.
Do you understand now?
|
No, it is censorship.
What you mean is that it's not a violation of the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights.