undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdaeken14y ago0 comments

A private corporation restricting access to information isn't censorship. If it were an article that the government put behind a paywall, you might be able to construe it as such, but even then it seems silly since there's still no limit on the expression itself.

0 comments

pavel_lishin14y ago

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the WSJ blocking access was censorship - I know they're fully within their rights, etc., etc. I just thought it was amusing.

JoeCortopassi14y ago

I thought it was funny :-)

william4214y ago

However, the Internet treats both as damage and routes around it.

SoftwareMaven14y ago

The government puts information behind paywalls all the time. It's called Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.

pavel_lishin14y ago

Other than that, FOIA request cost a token amount.

gnosis14y ago

"A private corporation restricting access to information isn't censorship."

  Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
  which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
  inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a
  government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Censorship

ryanhuff14y ago

Unfortunately, the quoted text was missing a key word. Rephrased here:

"A private corporation restricting access to ITS OWN information isn't censorship."

carussell14y ago

...none of which resembles WSJ's actions here...

(And Wikipedia is hardly approaching authoritative. I'd suggest something like the OED, but given that it's another subscription service [for the online form], I guess it would fall under one of those skewed interpretations of censorship, too.)

pavel_lishin14y ago

Cool, a pedant party. Anyone bring chips?

joe_the_user14y ago

Indeed,

Now if North Korea could only arrange to become one large company with its citizens relabeled employees, its laws relabeled "conditions of employment", and their prisons as "homeless camps" then no one could object.

Those who are fired are welcome to go "anywhere in the country not owned by KimCo" - IE to any of ten detention areas.

Yes, I think I've found the path to Freedom for the 'Democratic' North Koreans...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pavel_lishin14y ago

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the WSJ blocking access was censorship - I know they're fully within their rights, etc., etc. I just thought it was amusing.

JoeCortopassi14y ago

I thought it was funny :-)

william4214y ago

However, the Internet treats both as damage and routes around it.

SoftwareMaven14y ago

The government puts information behind paywalls all the time. It's called Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.

pavel_lishin14y ago

Other than that, FOIA request cost a token amount.

gnosis14y ago

"A private corporation restricting access to information isn't censorship."

  Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
  which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
  inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a
  government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Censorship

ryanhuff14y ago

Unfortunately, the quoted text was missing a key word. Rephrased here:

"A private corporation restricting access to ITS OWN information isn't censorship."

carussell14y ago

...none of which resembles WSJ's actions here...

pavel_lishin14y ago

Cool, a pedant party. Anyone bring chips?

joe_the_user14y ago

Indeed,

Those who are fired are welcome to go "anywhere in the country not owned by KimCo" - IE to any of ten detention areas.

Yes, I think I've found the path to Freedom for the 'Democratic' North Koreans...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse