Did the STYLEman thread just vanish?

[ernest]

I am at a loss here.

I repeat, knowing full well that you cannot understand or choose not to understand, that what you claimed to be censorship on j's part was not censorship.  It was moderation.  Of a forum he owns.  Censorship is when the government -- which as such enjoys a monopoly of coercive power -- bans or regulates thoughts, ideas and/or statements, and punishes people who disseminate them.

So censorship can only be made by a government?

For exemple, the boss of a newspaper who asks his journalists no to talk about something = this is not censorship?

What is the difference between censorship and moderation?

Dictators calls their acts moderation/pacification too. Never censorship.

 

[Manton]

Dictators calls their acts moderation/pacification too. Never censorship.

Fill out these forms, and good luck. You will feel right at home. http://www.berkeley.edu/applying/

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

Fill out these forms, and good luck. You will feel right at home

WINNER.

 

[Manton]

So censorship can only be made by a government?

Yes.

For exemple, the boss of a newspaper who asks his journalists no to talk about something = this is not censorship?

No.

What is the difference between censorship and moderation?

See above for the defintion of censorship.  Moderation is the regulation of participation in a private venue, by the owner of that venue.

Dictators calls their acts moderation/pacification too. Never censorship.

Well, if I had known that j was bent on world domination, I would never have joined the forum, much less sent him money.  Do you think he is really Styleman, the boy-wonder-master-of-the-universe?

 

[ernest]

You will feel right at home.

What do you mean?

 

[Mike]

ernest, j is employing a method of self-censorship. In this way he is deleteing things which could be offensive to Styleforum members. Since he is the owner of this board he does it so he keeps his guests happy. Its a method in the vein of "a stich in time saves nine" {figured this is an appropriate analogy for a board about clothing.}. Self-censorship is what the motion picture association does so the government keeps its nose out of their affairs. While j doesn't have the threat of government intervention, he just wants to keep the visitors happy.

j has only deleted things that were truly offensive and ignorant. Now, if he were to go through every post and edit language and view points that don't agree with his, then your case would hold more water. Until that point, I see no problem with stupid, ignorant, extremely racist comments to be deleted, at j and Steve's desire.

 

[Manton]

Self-censorship is what the motion picture association does so the government keeps its nose out of their affairs.

It's not just the government they worry about but consumer boycotts and a lot of other pressures.

 

[MikeF]

I am confused. Are you referring to the Canadian government's banning the viewing of the Fox News Channel for 9 years until just last month?

Where do you get this **** from?

 

[Brian SD]

ernest, j is employing a method of self-censorship. In this way he is deleteing things which could be offensive to Styleforum members. Since he is the owner of this board he does it so he keeps his guests happy. Its a method in the vein of "a stich in time saves nine" {figured this is an appropriate analogy for a board about clothing.}. Self-censorship is what the motion picture association does so the government keeps its nose out of their affairs. While j doesn't have the threat of government intervention, he just wants to keep the visitors happy.

j has only deleted things that were truly offensive and ignorant. Now, if he were to go through every post and edit language and view points that don't agree with his, then your case would hold more water. Until that point, I see no problem with stupid, ignorant, extremely racist comments to be deleted, at j and Steve's desire.

Well put, Mike.

 

[Mike]

Quote:

(Mike @ Feb. 24 2005,22:22) Self-censorship is what the motion picture association does so the government keeps its nose out of their affairs.
It's not just the government they worry about but consumer boycotts and a lot of other pressures.
Yes, this is true. I felt I should keep it simple.

 

[imageWIS]

Quote:

Unfortunately, as we have found out this week, our own government has also been involved in some fairly unsavory forms of censoring and controlling its media.
I am confused. Are you referring to the Canadian government's banning the viewing of the Fox News Channel for 9 years until just last month?
Um, you can get anything you want in any country on earth, its called satellite dish. That's right, you weren't dreaming, the Russians really did launch sputnik. Jon.

 

[linux_pro]

Quote:

Unfortunately, as we have found out this week, our own government has also been involved in some fairly unsavory forms of censoring and controlling its media.
I am confused. Are you referring to the Canadian government's banning the viewing of the Fox News Channel for 9 years until just last month?
I definitely consider manipulation of the press to be a rather vile form of censorship. I won't go into that too much as this is not supposed to be a political forum. And I like boobs. Boobs are good. We need more boobs actually, and less beheadings. I thought CBS should have reprimanded Janet Jackson for not showing MORE boob. Dangit, all those years I've waited, and that's all we get?? If the world spent more time enjoying boobs and less time worrying about all the silly things like nationalism and religion, maybe we could get along a little better. Endorphins are wonderful. Sorry, trying to back out of the political stuff here. I think everyone here could agree that boobs are a great thing. Heh heh. And Sarah, if you read this, you know your boobs are the only ones I like.

 

[Manton]

Sorry, trying to back out of the political stuff here.  I think everyone here could agree that boobs are a great thing.

Maybe there's a way to pivot this back to clothing. Do boobs look better in a more structured silhouette, like Brioni? Or are they better served by a coat with some drape, like Kiton?

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

CRTC APPROVES FOX NEWS FOR CANADA (SANITY COMES TO CANADA.)
CBC News ^ | 11/18/04

Posted on 11/18/2004 11:58:23 AM PST by areafiftyone

OTTAWA - The conservative-leaning Fox News Channel will soon be coming to Canadian digital television channels.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved an application Thursday to bring the Fox News Channel, one of the highest-rated news channels in the United States, onto Canadian digital airwaves.

The Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA) applied to the broadcast regulator in April.

Canadians already have access to the main Fox network, but not the right-leaning, 24-hour news channel, with its trademarked slogan of "fair and balanced."

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) opposed the application, saying it would discourage foreign broadcasters from partnering with Canadian broadcasters.

However, in its decision, the CRTC said Fox News offers little Canadian coverage and is not "partially or totally competitive with any Canadian pay or specialty service." It added that the channel would "significantly boost digital penetration in Canada" and increase the availability of digital services in the country.

The CRTC also approved the NFL Network, a 24-hour "lifestyle and entertainment" channel for football fans. It doesn't carry live games, with the exception of a few exhibition games.

Past application rejected

The CRTC rejected a CCTA application to bring Fox to Canada last November because Fox News U.S. and Winnipeg-based Global Television were planning to create Fox News Canada, a combination of U.S. and Canadian news.

However, in March, a Fox U.S. executive said there were no plans to create the combined channel.

The CRTC was thrust into the spotlight in July after giving conditional approval to the digital broadcast of Arab television station al-Jazeera.

* FROM JULY 15, 2004: Al-Jazeera cleared for Canadian viewers

The commission said Canadian carriers had to keep an "audio-visual recording" of the controversial network's broadcasts. It told Canadian distributors to monitor the broadcast 24 hours a day, giving them permission to "alter or curtail" programming to keep out abusive commentary, especially of an anti-Semitic nature.

No Canadian distributors carry al-Jazeera.

Fox was launched in 1996 by a former Republican advisor, Roger Ailes. It's a subsidiary of News Corp. Ltd., which is controlled by right-wing Australian media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.

 

[imageWIS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Kabbaz,Feb. 24 2005,18:42

Unfortunately, as we have found out this week, our own government has also been involved in some fairly unsavory forms of censoring and controlling its media.

I am confused. Are you referring to the Canadian government's banning the viewing of the Fox News Channel for 9 years until just last month?
I definitely consider manipulation of the press to be a rather vile form of censorship. I won't go into that too much as this is not supposed to be a political forum. And I like boobs. Boobs are good. We need more boobs actually, and less beheadings. I thought CBS should have reprimanded Janet Jackson for not showing MORE boob. Dangit, all those years I've waited, and that's all we get?? If the world spent more time enjoying boobs and less time worrying about all the silly things like nationalism and religion, maybe we could get along a little better. Endorphins are wonderful. Sorry, trying to back out of the political stuff here. I think everyone here could agree that boobs are a great thing. Heh heh. And Sarah, if you read this, you know your boobs are the only ones I like.

Boobs are great. Look, we even have one for a President. Thus, every time Bush is on TV I see a boob. Jon.