Born in 1914 at the dawn of cinema, Italys censorship law felled some giants of the silver screen including Last Tango in Paris but now faces its own curtain call.

Film censorship has been abolished, announced culture minister Dario Franceschini in a statement late on Monday.

The system of controls and interventions that still allow the state to intervene in the freedom of artists has been definitively ended.

As a result, it will now no longer be possible to block the release of a new film or demand edits for moral or religious reasons. Filmmakers will instead classify their own movies based on the age of the audience.

Their decisions will be verified by a new commission made up of 49 members chosen from the film industry, but will be experts in education and animal rights.

Its a form of self-regulation. We are mature enough, said director Pupi Avati, whose 1970s film Bordella was censored.

Hundreds of films have been censored in Italy over the past century, primarily for political, moral and religious reasons.

Most famous was Bernardo Bertoluccis Oscar-nominated 1972 classic Last Tango In Paris, all copies of which were destroyed except for three preserved as proof of the crime.

Scrapping the law was an important and historic step for Italian cinema, said Elena Boero, a film expert: It was time.

According to a survey by Cinecensura, an online exhibition promoted by the culture ministry, 274 Italian films, 130 American movies and 321 from other countries have been censured in Italy since 1944.

More than 10,000 were modified in some way, including works by directors such as Federico Fellini.

But for some artists censorship had the effect of drawing in viewers. It make films more seductive, generating public interest, especially those with an erotic theme, said Avati.

The last major case of censorship was in 1998 with the blasphemous and grotesque Toto Who Lived Twice, which was strongly criticised by traditional Catholics.

Continued here:

Italy ends censorship of films on moral and religious grounds - The Guardian

Over the past couple months, there has been an increasing amount of controversy concerning widespread Big Tech suppression. Many conservatives feel that their opinions are being stifled on the internet due to left-leaning bias within social media companies. To them, Donald Trumps ban from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and almost every other popular social media platform was extremely alarming. Personally, I felt a little torn about the event. Though I wholeheartedly think the removal was deserved and the majority of claims of the suppression of opinions is overblown, the underlying implications of the ban were somewhat worrying and highlight a growing issue of political division in our country.

Twitter, Facebook, and other large social media corporations each have the right to control whos allowed on their platform. They all have terms of service, and if they feel that an individual or group of individuals has violated those rules, they all reserve the right to ban those people from their platform. However, while these private companies are acting well within their rights, their platforms are critical areas for public discourse. Politicians use Twitter and Instagram to publish political statements and debate their fellow elected officials. By deciding who can and cannot speak, social media can effectively control the public narrative on many discussions.

Furthermore, these corporations first priority isnt to create a perfect space for political discourse its their own profit margins. If these two goals happen to align, theyll act in a way that benefits all, but it might not always transpire that way. These companies havent been elected; they have no democratic accountability, and so the publics well-being holds limited weight in their decisions.

In spite of this, it is a massive overreaction to call this extreme censorship. Trump, by the time he was removed from Twitter, had violated its terms of service multiple times. It also does not make sense to accuse these companies of collective censorship because this was an isolated incident; we havent really seen anyone with such power silenced on such a large scale before.

Additionally, what would the alternative option even be?. Would we rather have social media sites with no terms of service? Or have the government play a role in these forms of media? These are complicated questions to which we are still developing the answer. Ultimately, the more pressing issue is the growing aversion to open discussion.

Across social media, advocating for an unpopular standpoint or even just asking a question can garner massive amounts of hate, even if there was no malice intended. Such reactions ostracize opposing viewpoints and push people to congregate within echo chambers that magnify hate and mute dissent. We saw this with Parler, a social media platform that devolved into a place for extreme right-wingers to spread misinformation, form conspiracies, and even plan insurgencises. The app was filled with Proud Boys members, Holocaust deniers, and white supremacists. Yet, on Nov. 8, during the presidential election, the Parler app was among the most downloaded apps on the internet. And while some extremists mightve joined the community to spread hate and conspiracies unchecked, I dont think that was the selling point for most people. The company framed itself as a place to speak freely and express yourself openly without fear of being deplatformed for your views, playing on the growing fear of cancel culture. And so people flocked to the app, exposing themselves to many of these insane theories and throwing themselves down this rabbit hole.

Now, I know it is a somewhat privileged idea to want to have these discussions, as not everyone wants to engage with opposing views, especially when sometimes it is their own existence that is being questioned. Additionally, not all opinions should have a platform. Some speech is just blatantly hateful or false, and this rhetoric should not have a place to exist. However, blocking out entire belief systems forces people to speak only amongst themselves, and thereby become more entrenched in what they believe.

As someone who leans heavily towards the left, this is the worst thing possible, as no change can occur until more of our voting population comes together on certain issues. There will always be those who dont listen, but we must strive to curb the trend of polarization. As Harvard students, we sometimes fall into this trap, forming our own echo chamber and not giving opposing views a place. Listening shouldnt come at the expense of ones mental health or well-being, and not everyone is open to discussion. But, if conceivable, instead of pushing a differing opinion away, we should try to spend some time understanding where the speaker is coming from and respectfully offer our own opinion as well.

Julius E. Ewungkem 24 is a Crimson Editorial editor.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.

See more here:

Yes, the Left Should Be Worried About Censorship | Opinion - Harvard Crimson

Russia has implemented a novel censorship method in an ongoing effort to silence Twitter. Instead of blocking the social media site outright, the country is using previously unseen techniques to slow traffic to a crawl and make the site all but unusable for people inside the country.

Research published Tuesday says that the throttling slows traffic traveling between Twitter and Russia-based end users to a paltry 128 kbps. Whereas past internet censorship techniques used by Russia and other nation-states have relied on simple blocking, slowing traffic passing to and from a widely used internet service is a relatively new technique that provides benefits for the censoring party.

Contrary to blocking, where access to the content is blocked, throttling aims to degrade the quality of service, making it nearly impossible for users to distinguish imposed/intentional throttling from nuanced reasons such as high server load or a network congestion, researchers with Censored Planet, a censorship measurement platform that collects data in more than 200 countries, wrote in a report. With the prevalence of dual-use technologies such as deep packet inspection devices (DPIs), throttling is straightforward for authorities to implement yet hard for users to attribute or circumvent.

The throttling began on March 10, as documented in tweets here and here from Doug Madory, director of internet analysis at internet measurement firm Kentik.

In an attempt to slow traffic destined to or originating from Twitter, Madory found, Russian regulators targeted t.co, the domain used to host all content shared on the site. In the process, all domains that had the string t.co in it (for example, Microsoft.com or reddit.com) were throttled too.

That move led to widespread internet problems because it rendered affected domains as effectively unusable. The throttling also consumed the memory and CPU resources of affected servers because it required them to maintain connections for much longer than normal.

RoskomnadzorRussia's executive body that regulates mass communications in the countrysaid last month that it was throttling Twitter for failing to remove content involving child pornography, drugs, and suicide. It went on to say that the slowdown affected the delivery of audio, video, and graphics, but not Twitter itself. Critics of government censorship, however, say Russia is misrepresenting its reasons for curbing Twitter availability. Twitter declined to comment for this post.

Tuesdays report says that the throttling is carried out by a large fleet of middleboxes that Russian ISPs install as close to the customer as possible. This hardware, Censored Planet researcher Leonid Evdokimov told me, is typically a server with a 10-Gbps network interface card and custom software. A central Russian authority feeds the boxes instructions for what domains to throttle.

The middleboxes inspect both requests sent by Russian end users as well as responses that Twitter returns. That means that the new technique may have capabilities not found in older internet censorship regimens, such as filtering of connections using VPNs, Tor, and censorship-circumvention apps. Ars previously wrote about the servers here.

The middleboxes use deep packet inspection to extract information, including the SNI. Short for server name identification, the SNI is the domain name of the HTTPS website that is sent in plaintext during a normal internet transaction. Russian censors use the plaintext for more granular blocking and throttling of websites. Blocking by IP address, by contrast, can have unintended consequences because it often blocks content the censor wants to keep in place.

One countermeasure for circumventing the throttling is the use of ECH, or Encrypted ClientHello. An update for the Transport Layer Security protocol, ECH prevents blocking or throttling by domains so that censors have to resort to IP-level blocking. Anti-censorship activists say this leads to what they call collateral freedom because the risk of blocking essential services often leaves the censor unwilling to accept the collateral damage resulting from blunt blocking by IP address.

In all, Tuesdays report lists seven countermeasures:

Its possible that some of the countermeasures could be enabled by anti-censorship software such as GoodbyeDPI, Psiphon, or Lantern. The limitation, however, is that the countermeasures exploit bugs in Russia's current throttling implementation. That means the ongoing tug of war between censors and anti-censorship advocates may turn out to be protracted.

This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.

More Great WIRED Stories

View post:

Russia May Have Found a New Way to Censor the Internet - WIRED

from the not-helping dept

Over the last decade Russia has accelerated the government's quest to censor the internet. That was most conspicuous with the passage of a 2016 surveillance bill that not only mandated encryption backdoors, but effectively banned VPN providers from operating in the country unless they were willing to spy and censor at Putin's behest. Many VPN providers weren't keen on that, so they simply stopped doing business in the country.

More recently, Russia has been engaged in a bit of a hissy fit over Twitter's unwillingness to censor things the Russian government doesn't like. And while Twitter has been trying to filter more illegal behavior and pornography at the government's behest, the company hasn't been censoring broader content at the rate Putin and pals prefer. So as punishment, Russia has taken to throttling user access to Twitter to a rather 1997-esque 128 kbps, or about the speed of an old IDSN line. Granted the ham-fisted gamesmanship Russia has been engaged in has already resulted in some notable collateral damage:

New data suggests (you can find the technical specifics here) that Russia is engaging in the throttling via the use of "middleboxes" that Russian ISPs have installed as close to the customer as possible. Russian authorities then feed data on which domain should be throttled and punished to the devices, which utilize deep packet inspection to identify targeted traffic. Ars Technica notes that the deep packet inspection technology (which US ISPs also use, though most frequently for targeted advertising) opens the door to a much more sophisticated tracking and censoring regime less prone to collateral damage:

"The middleboxes inspect both requests sent by Russian end users as well as responses that Twitter returns. That means that the new technique may have capabilities not found in older Internet censorship regimens, such as filtering of connections using VPNs, Tor, and censorship-circumvention apps. Ars previously wrote about the servers here.

The middleboxes use deep packet inspection to extract information, including the SNI. Short for server name identification, the SNI is the domain name of the HTTPS website that is sent in plaintext during a normal Internet transaction. Russian censors use the plaintext for more granular blocking and throttling of websites. Blocking by IP address, by contrast, can have unintended consequences because it often blocks content the censor wants to keep in place.

New reports suggest there are around seven countermeasures Russian companies and citizens can use to thwart these efforts, including ECH, or Encrypted ClientHello, an update for the Transport Layer Security protocol that prevents domain blocking and throttling. That forces government censors to rely on the more collateral damage-prone IP-level blocklists, which (might) act as a deterrent for censorship obsessed governments that don't want a whole lot of attention focused on the fact they're massive cowards afraid of the free exchange of information that might challenge their hegemony.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, deep packet inspection, russia, throttlingCompanies: twitter

Read more:

Russia Ramps Up Censorship Beef With Twitter Using Deep Packet Inspection Tech - Techdirt

When officials and agencies use interactive social media in these ways, they create spaces that play important functions in our democracy. Their accounts can be sources of official information, channels through which citizens can petition their representatives for redress of grievances (as the First Amendment puts it) and forums in which citizens can exchange information and ideas. The same reasoning that led the appeals court to hold that Mr. Trump couldnt constitutionally block critics from his Twitter account makes clear that other government actors who engage in similar conduct do so at their peril.

In fact, since we filed the case, almost a dozen other courts have applied the First Amendments public forum doctrine in cases involving the social media accounts of legislators, mayors, city councilors and sheriffs. The effect of these judicial rulings extends beyond the litigants. Made aware of these rulings, many public officials who were excluding people from their accounts based on viewpoint have voluntarily changed their practices.

These rulings also have implications for government-run accounts on platforms other than Twitter. The Army and Navy have been using Twitch, a gaming platform, to livestream e-sports as part of their recruiting efforts. Those who watch these multiplayer video games on the militarys Twitch channels can also exchange messages in moderated forums. The exchanges can be wide-ranging, but until recently moderators made a practice of ejecting participants who asked questions about war crimes. Moderators changed course only after the courts decision in Mr. Trumps case was brought to their attention.

These developments in the law, and in the practice of government agencies and officials, should be welcomed. The technology may be new, but the rule that government actors cant exclude people from public forums on the basis of viewpoint has been practically synonymous with the First Amendment for decades. Its a good thing that speakers who were previously silenced can now voice their dissent, that public officials who were previously shielded from the views of their constituents are now exposed to them and that digital forums that were previously echo chambers are now more ideologically diverse.

Over the next years, the courts, legislatures and the public will have to answer a slew of thorny questions about free speech and social media, including about the extent of Congresss power to regulate the companies. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted Monday in connection with the Supreme Courts order, some of these questions were presented starkly by the major social media companies decision to deplatform Mr. Trump after the siege on the Capitol. In comparison with these questions, the one presented by our case was easy.

But if the proposition that government officials may not exclude speakers from public forums because of their political views is straightforward, its also foundational to our democracy. Even those disinclined to thank Mr. Trump for anything can perhaps thank him for having given the courts an occasion to reaffirm this basic principle.

Jameel Jaffer is the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Katie Fallow is a senior staff attorney at the institute.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read more:

Opinion | Official Censorship Should Have No Place in the Digital Public Square - The New York Times

Posted: Apr 7, 2021 / 08:56 AM EDT / Updated: Apr 7, 2021 / 09:06 AM EDT

FILE In this Jan. 11, 2021 file photo, Indianas attorney general Todd Rokita speaks, in Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings, File)

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (WANE) Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has launched an investigation into whether five tech companies have engaged in business practices that are abusive, deceptive and/or unfair.

Rokita made the announcement of the investigation Wednesday morning and indicated hell determine if Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter potentially harmed Indiana consumers. Hell be investigating whether those companies limited access to content reflecting conservative points of view.

In a free society, few assets are more important to consumers than access to information and the opportunity to express political viewpoints in meaningful forums, Attorney General Rokita said. It is potentially harmful and unfair for these companies to manipulate content in ways they do not publicly discuss or that consumers do not fully understand.

Rokita is also investigating whether attorney Vanita Gupta, who is a nominee to be associate U.S. Attorney General, encouraged those companies to censor conservative viewpoints.

WANE 15 is working to get reaction from the five tech companies.

View post:

Censorship investigation of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter launched by Indiana Attorney General - WANE

08/04/2021 - A new commission will evaluate the correct classification of works by producers or distributors based on the four sections outlined in the 2016 Cinema Law of Italy

Tot che visse due volte, by Daniele Cipr and Franco Maresco, the last relevant case of censorship of an Italian film

Many have wondered what the "abolition of cinematographic censorship," announced by the Minister of Culture, Dario Franceschini, really means, after his signature of the decree establishing the Commission for the classification of cinematographic works, whose task is to verify the correct classification of cinematographic works by operators.

With the establishment of this commission to replace the review commission based on the model used in France it will no longer be possible to prohibit the release of a work in theaters or on TV, or to impose cuts and changes. The commission will only evaluate the correct classification of the work by the production, which will in charge of "labeling" its film according to the four sections outlined in the 2016 Cinema Law: works for all, works not suitable to children under the age of 6, works prohibited to minors under the age of 14, works prohibited to minors under the age of 18. A classification, as stated in the legislation, which is proportionate to the needs of child protection and the protection of minors, with particular regard to the sensitivity and development of the personality of each age group and respect for human dignity.

The new commission is chaired by Alessandro Pajno, President emeritus of the State Council, and 49 members, of which 14 were chosen among "university professors in law, lawyers, magistrates assigned to positions at the juvenile court, administrative magistrates, state lawyers and parliamentary advisers; seven chosen from experts in pedagogical-educational aspects related to the protection of minors, another seven from university professors of psychology, psychiatry or pedagogy, pedagogists and professional educators; seven other sociologists with particular expertise in social communication and in childhood and adolescent behaviour, seven designated by the most representative parents' associations; four from the cinematographic field and three designated by the most representative animal protection associations.

The small number of members with strictly cinematographic skills is worrying to some, and now that the classification is up to producers and distributors, one wonders who will guarantee that the former state censorship does not turn into self-censorship, as producers and distributors try to preempt any conflict with the commission that must verify the adequacy of their choices.

According to libertarian and anarchist master of eros Tinto Brass, who has fought against censorship for his entire artistic career, (he is now 88 years old, and 29 out of 30 of his films are censored), "as long as there is a commission that decides on the classification of works and establishes prohibitions for viewing a film, even if only on the basis of age, little will change in substance, because that system of checks and interventions from the powers that be will continue to affect the freedom of artists, which has always been and continues to be the most important thing for me. The last relevant case of censorship of an Italian film dates back more than 20 years: in 1998 was blocked the theatrical release of Tot che visse due volte, directed by Daniele Cipr and Franco Maresco, which was considered to be a film "degrading to the dignity of the Sicilian people, of the Italian world and of humanity, and which expressed contempt for religious sentiment.

Go here to read the rest:

Goodbye censorship, now is the age of auto-classification - Cineuropa

Russia and Twitter have locked horns over the past month, over the latters alleged role in amplifying dissent in the country. The country has since decided to adopt a novel method of censoring the microblogging site, without blocking it entirely and the decision is reportedly affecting other sites too.

According to WIRED, the country has started throttling Twitter traffic in the country, from regular internet speeds to an insufferable 128 kbps. That means that instead of blocking the website entirely, the country can ensure that the site is virtually unusable by making parts of the service nearly impossible to use.

Also read: Twitter slowdown in Russia until mid-May; no block for now

By throttling the connections between the service and Russian users, the government is able to make it difficult for users to bypass compared to a regular block. WIRED reports that this is done by implementing a technology called middleboxes, which can monitor the traffic of Russian users and the company that is sending the data in this case, Twitter.

The Russian government resorted to slowing down the traffic from Twitters t.co domain, which the company uses for things like short links, media and other parts of the site. While slowing down that domain may not stop users from visiting the site, it would make accessing any content on the site itself virtually impossible. As an unfortunate side effect, blocking t.co as a domain also ended up blocking websites like Microsoft.com and Reddit.com as part of the block.

Read more: Vietnam threatens to shut down Facebook over censorship requests

These middleboxes receive instructions from the government, according to the report, relying on custom code and a 10Gbps network card to quickly slow down the websites that they have been told to target. There are a few countermeasures, that involve using encryption to hide the requests for websites made by the user when connecting to the server, but the report suggests that this could be a game of cat and mouse between the government and those looking to avoid the censorship for a while.

See the original post:

Here's how Russia is censoring websites like Twitter without blocking them - HT Tech

Graphic by Corrina Riess.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: This letter to the editor was published by The Butler Collegian after fact-checking. The opinions contained in this letter are those of the author. The Butler Collegian is committed to sharing diverse viewpoints from across the university and is committed to upholding values of free speech, but does not endorse or promote opinions contained within any letter to the editor.

There was nothing but excitement and optimism when I started my SGA position. Ive always wanted to be an advocate for the student body and naively thought that getting involved in SGA was the way to do it. However, this past year has shown me the faade of SGAs power and role on campus. Ive felt a moral obligation to share the egregious amount of control and censorship that the Butler administration has over student government, and the past week has been without a doubt a glaring sign to do so.

First and foremost, Id like to apologize to my fellow students. A student government is supposed to listen to students voices, and in turn, represent those voices at a higher level where all students cannot be present. What a student government is not supposed to do is stand idly by as students voices are silenced. SGA has failed to support the student body on countless occurrences, most recently involving the event, The Joint Struggle and Collective Liberation: A Conversation with Angela Davis, where the prominent civil rights activist was supposed to speak.

The administrations control over SGA is evident through our lackluster public statements. The purpose of an SGA statement is to communicate the student viewpoint to the whole university to declare, This is where we stand. Time and time again, SGA has released statements that have not accurately reflected the student body, but rather reflected the administrations oppressive agenda. In the past academic year, conversations regarding race and mental health are prime examples.

The statements are first constructed by the SGA executive branch members and their advisors. Based on the severity of the controversy, the higher-up administration intervenes to make sure the message fits their mold. This manipulative last step of revisions is absolutely unacceptable because it takes away the true student voice during the final decisions.

Rewind. Read that again: they have the power to edit out the student voice.

So, what actual power does SGA have on campus?

The administration acts as if we are able to change things on campus. They flaunt the fact that Butler was founded by an abolitionist, but has failed to pursue such a bold and progressive mission. Supporting abolition in 1855 was controversial. Allowing anyone but white men to receive an education in 1855 was controversial.

Fast forward to the 21st century: whenever anything remotely controversial occurs, the administration hides behind vague statements and pressures SGA to follow suit. As an SGA member, this is incredibly frustrating because these statements are an extension of the administration instead of being a vessel for the students. Even if SGA wanted to release a statement that goes against the administration, there would be a chain of punishment delivered, working itself down to whoever started it.

We saw this unfold most recently with the Angela Davis event. When the administration canceled the event, they immediately started looking for ways to point fingers and shift the blame onto someone else. The statement that SGA pushed out was heavily censored, and as always, followed the administration to solidify their stance as the end-all-be-all truth.

Butler encourages students to go outside their comfort zones and ways of thinking. How hypocritical.

They take our student government, which is supposed to represent a diverse student body, and filter it through with their close-minded beliefs.

I understand students anger and frustration towards SGA, and I challenge you as the reader to see the deeper, much scarier truth: SGA is the result of a control-hungry administration that is terrified of any opposition, and they are desperately trying to hide the strings they pull. To realize SGA has no real power on campus is a hopeless truth to wrap your head around. As an SGA member it is certainly discouraging, and I can no longer choose to ignore it.

The question comes again: what do students actually need?

Students need a representative body thats empowered by the genuine promise of an institution concerned with the student experience.

SGA has the potential to fulfill this vision. Our first steps are to acknowledge the stark contrast between the students priorities and the administrations agenda. Demanding a real seat at the table may seem daunting when the true people in power are faceless to the student body. These demands should not be seen as extremes or over-asks, as these are already the mere standards at other universities.

Uncovering the truth behind the postponement of the Angela Davis event speaks to our power. I encourage you to keep challenging the administrations actions and exercise your right to express your opinions.

I hope one day the university can acknowledge students concerns with intentional validation, leading to a progressive environment that fulfills the mission statement of stimulating an intellectual community built upon interactive dialogue.

This letter to the editor was written by an anonymous source who is involved in SGA.

Related

See more here:

Letter to the Editor: The institutional censorship of SGA - The Butler Collegian

Editors note: Guest editorials may not necessarily reflect the opinion of the newspaper. The following is from Thomas L. Knapp, director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism

Some words carry emotional force such that using them creates an immediate negative reaction on the part of the listener or reader. That makes such words useful until they get overused and misused so much that they cease to have the effect.

Lately, the trending creep people out to get them on my side word of choice is censor or censorship. Most of us support free speech. None of us wants to be censored ourselves, and most of us dont want others censored either.

But what do those words mean? To censor (verb), according to Oxford Dictionaries, is to examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.

A censor (noun) is an official who examines material and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Implicit in both those definitions is that censorship is an act of the state, backed by force of law and if necessary the physical force of government agents.

Ive often explained censorship this way:

If I tell you that you may not sing Auld Lang Syne or I will send police to break up the performance and haul you off to jail, I am censoring (or at least attempting to censor) you.

If I tell you that you may not sing Auld Lang Syne on my front porch at 3 a.m. and by the way get off my porch, its 3 in the morning, I am not censoring you. Youre still free to sing the song anywhere else and any other time, just not on my property while Im trying to sleep.

Which maps neatly, I think, to Twitter and Facebook deciding who gets to post what on their platforms. They cant stop you from using other platforms to say whatever it is they dont want you to say.

It maps less neatly to Apple, Google and Amazon colluding to destroy one of those other platforms (Parler), seemingly on behalf of government officials who think its their business who says what and where. Thankfully, Parler survived and returned, but weve definitely got some edge cases going that certainly at least resemble censorship, and that I was admittedly somewhat asleep at the switch on until that wake-up call.

Recently, Ive had to add a third example to my explanation, though. Some friends of mine very libertarian friends, in fact recently held that Dr. Seuss Enterprises is censoring books it chooses not to publish. So, explanation of censorship, part three:

If I choose not to sing Auld Lang Syne myself, Im not censoring the song.

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty tells Alice in Lewis Carrolls Through the Looking Glass, it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.

There seems to be a lot of Humpty Dumpty usage of the word censorship lately. If were not careful, abusing it to mean anything I dont like may drain it of its rightful argumentative power and leave us in the grip of the real thing.

The rest is here:

Editorial: What censorship is and isn't | Editorials | timesnews.net - Kingsport Times News