Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) wrote: > >> This is the "censorship is the same as selection" fallacy. No, > > > >You know, I've studied logic and debate for awhile, and I've never > heard >of this "censorship is the same as selection" fallacy you > mention. >Perhaps you're like to cite your sources? He may be talking about the "all editorial decisions are censorship" question - you know the one: (A) "TIME dint by my arikle, so obvisly there sencoring me!" "No, no no, that's not censorship, it's editing." "No, its scensorship!" on the one hand, versus, (B) "[Your favourite publication's name here] has deleted all the anti-censorship arguments and facts from my article about the internet and left in only the quotations from Cathy Cleaver. I think they are trying to censor the anti-censorship side of the argument." "That's their editorial policy." "No, they represent themselves as being on the middle-to-liberal side; they claim to support free expression. But they seem strangely hostile to the internet, and have been doing this with several articles about the net. Where I was writing about the CDA and and said, 'the broad category of "indecency", which would include much material that is legally available in libraries and even Supreme Court decisions,' they replaced that with just the word 'pornography'. That tells me they were deliberately trying to slant the piece." "It's still not censorship." It doesn't apply to your discussion, of course, but his own command of logic isn't very good. On Usenet, you and I, and not our servers, are the editors. Meanwhile... For your summer reading list: Reading _Unicorn Mountain_ by Michael Bishop is one of the best experiences I've had with the written word in a long time. I don't just recommend this book, I prescribe it. Avedon Feminists Against Censorship http://www.fullfeed.com/hypatia/censor.html