Maygra's Musings

Someone did a brilliant post regarding censorship and freedom of speech that I read last night but have since lost, however, the gist of it is is both true and this:

Found: http://cofax7.livejournal.com/429890.html

Please note that the above was posted long before the current fury.


In the US, censorship only applies to government. Federal, state, city, local. Private entities, including LJ, Yahoogroups, your workplace, your local coffee shop -- can forbid pretty much anything they like that isn't covered by some other anti-discrimination laws. So, yes, LJ can censor based on content. Despite it's public feel, it's still a privately held entity (or a corporately held one) -- if your workplace determines that cussing -- even mild cussing -- is a punishable offense (writing you up or even firing you) they can do that and it's not an infringement on your right to free speech.

Freedom of speech, via the constitution, guarantees only that the government will not interfere in citizen's rights to air their grievances, to gather publicly, to voice their opinions.

People who try to get HP tossed from their school libraries are engaged in censorship because they are trying to get the School -- funded by public monies and thus a part of the government -- to make a decision regarding what should and shouldn't be read. Parents refusing to allow their children to read HP and requesting an alternative are not engaging in censorship in a broad sense -- they are exercising their rights as parents to control what their children read (an exercise in futility I think, but within their rights as parents).

I get that the above is very broad, lacks finesse and details, but the gist of it is that businesses, acting on their stated policies, are not engaging in censorship. They are not infringing on your freedom of speech.

They might be being asshats, or people might be rude...people shutting down threads or deleting comments is not censorship.

Seriously, I know someone else said this better.