David Teten and Scott Allens’ passage highlights the complexity in censorship when ideas of free speech are brough into focus. I have always had an idea of how difficult it is to sift through all the arguments concerning censorship to arrive at decent rules to set down. They display the many vague areas and shades of gray that exist in the issue. They state initially that online communities have owners who have the right to establish and censor the community. However, they go into questions of personal blogs and other online communities where individual voices are the main content. Many of these different ideas lead to complex and overlapping legislation. I know that censorship is an issue that will not be resolved anytime soon. I do like how the authors mentioned that if a user does not like the rules set by one community, they should move onto another instead of stirring up a bunch of issues. Honestly, what are they trying to prove?
Censorship On the Internet
Advertisement
