Quote Originally Posted by Osiris View Post
Go back. Re-read. We're talking about censorship as a moral issue. Not an issue of legality.



Again, not an argument about legality. You continue to bring up the question of whether or not is legal in order to skirt the fundamentals. It's not a question of legality. It is a question of ethics and morality.



I would be very surprised to find someone who does not consider the act of an individual taking it upon themselves to remove language from the creative work of another, with the sole intent to keep those words from reaching someone else's ears, to be censorship. People who wouldn't think it to be something else are obviously unclear as to the definition of the word.

As for you contending that the two are mutually exclusive, you are merely remaining ignorant. Can you read? I know you can. Go back and read the definitions. Your adamancy of your position is silly at this point, the facts are the facts. The act of removing the "offensive language" from the show is an act of censorship, whether or not you want to recognize in some attempt to be contrary for the sake of it does not change the intent or the definition. I can unequivocally state that you are wrong, and have supported that statement with quantifiable evidence. You have made it a matter of personal opinion. It is not. You seem to believe that only the government is capable of censoring anything. You are entirely wrong, as I have demonstrated.

I use the word censorship in it's broadest, all encompassing sense. You seem fit to dwell on a singular definition of it, showing complete disregard for its intent, its scope, and its dangers. It is simple ignorance to think in this way. I do not believe that you have an understanding of what you're speaking of, if in fact you believe that the only censorship possible rests in the hands of "the government."
Ok. I concede the point that it is censorship for a parent to limit, in any way, what his or her child has access or exposure to. It is the definition of the word/language/term/etc.

I disagree that it is wrong or damnable for the parent to do it, in context, just because it fits the term. My observation was that you were saying that it was wrong or damnable for the parent to do it unless the parent simply shuttered the child from exposure completely. Which I don't really understand because, by your definition, that complete shuttering would also be censorship and therefore wrong or damnable.

So, we come back to where all internet debates seem to land. You still have your opinion on the topic and I still have mine.

I have, however, been educated on the definition of censorship and for that, my friend, I thank you. :-)