Quote Originally Posted by scbubba View Post
A parent as an official is different than a government or organization official. The parent has authority and responsibility for his or her children and makes decisions for them until they come of age. That's not they same thing as a government, or other organization, taking away choices.
A very narrow view of the intent. Applying a hierarchical structure to the home, the official in this case is very much the parent. If you really need to hang on to your definition of censorship. But, let's not apply needless definitions or interpretations:

cen·sor [sen-ser]
noun 1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.


2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.


3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.

4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.


5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
In this case, the parent fits both definitions of the word. You can argue that an official needs to sit in a position of authority, making laws, and so on. I'll argue--quite convincingly if you want--that the parent fits the definition. Arguing that censorship is only possible by a government agency shows me you don't understand the definition of the words themselves, and you are placing your own restrictions upon them to fit your argument. You're going to lose that argument ten out of ten times, because the English language disagrees with you.

It is also a parenting style to limit access to something versus just the binary on/off decision.
It is also a parenting style to lock a kid in a closet after beating her with a leather belt until she's bleeding.


I haven't agreed that it is censorship, I've agreed that parent's have the right to make choices for their children that a) are not against the law and b) that you or I don't agree with. You may not like what DM did with his edits and may not make that same choice for yourself and your family. But it is entirely legal, is not harmful or detrimental to the children's welfare, and does not take away the choice from anyone not in DM's family.
Can you show me where I said that what Doofusmanky has done is illegal? I'd like to re-read that.

Context matters here. There are many things that I as a parent will restrict or limit for my children that the government cannot. that doesn't make it censorship. Examples are, watching movies that I think expose them to high levels of "mature" subject matter, walking alone out of the neighborhood, limiting how often they eat at fast food joints.

So, I don't think it's censorship because of the context of the parental role that DM has for his kids.
You're right. Context does matter here. You limit a child's exposure to keeping porn away from them, from hiding the scary movies, by keeping that creepy uncle from coming to the house. You make not think it's censorship because of the context you're placing it in, but it is in fact the very definition of the word. Again, censorship is the act of censoring.
— n
1.a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc
2.any person who controls or suppresses the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds
3.(in republican Rome) either of two senior magistrates elected to keep the list of citizens up to date, control aspects of public finance, and supervise public morals
4.psychoanal See also superego the postulated factor responsible for regulating the translation of ideas and desires from the unconscious to the conscious mind
— vb
5.to ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc)
6.to act as a censor of (behaviour, etc)

This could not be more clear. It fits the globally accepted definition to the letter. If you feel the need to argue further that it doesn't, you're not understanding the language at all. I understand that your position is based in a reality where you make up definitions to suit your needs, but it doesn't make it correct.