Quote:
Originally Posted by rixte
You said it was a crime here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...55&postcount=9
Trying to make Apple's exercising that basic right of all thinking creatures into a crime doesn't say anything at all bad about Apple.
Also, you're definition of censorship continues to include things like only government or physical interference. Those aren't standard definitions.
In this case, Apple basically said they would only publish a certain book if particular words were deleted based on moral objections to the word. That's censorship - they are suppressing the usage of that word on their site.
That IS within their right to do, I don't dispute that. I do, however, think that it's objectionable and it's definitely the sort of thing that I like to know about - because just as they choose to censor, I can choose not to patronize organizations that censor. See? |
My definition is what I was taught in civics classes back in the 1960s when spent a couple weeks covering censorship, and why it is wrong when it is abused.
I oppose degrading the nuance of language. See?