No, it's censorship. Whether one person uses a black marker or a whole media conglomerate choose to ignore/ remove/ block any info whatsoever, you are censoring the data/ media/ facts, ect.
I don't care if you privately own the servers, ect. By your censorship of certain elements you become biased and unbalanced.
You are either for freedom of speech/ the press, ect. or you are for censorship. There is no grey area. You censor things, and because of such actions even one time become biased, or you don't.
Some people who don't have/ understand having a first amendment may not get it that it is indeed censorship…
MR is a censor also, FWI.
If you are using the dictionary definition of the verb "to censor" as "to selectivley prevent some written material from being published" then of course you are right, and proof reader is a censor by that definition when they correct an author's bad grammar.
But I suspect you are using the perjorative sense of the word censorship, which like discrimination, liberal, and conservative, have acquired bargeloads of hidden meaning, mainly that it is unacceptable in a 'free' society to censor or discriminate. Which is a load of bollocks. If that were the case, television, radio and newspapers would be unwatch/listen/able because anything and everything regardless of interest, merit or value would have to be published.
Freedom of speech does NOT confer upon a media outlet the OBLIGATION to publish every iota of material that correspondents submit. Surely you will agree to that.
It also doesn't mean you can plaster a poster with your free expression onto a shop window, or a transit bus. Nor can you use a megaphone in a theatre to express yourself to the audience who is there to watch Pirates 3.
Digg, like every other website, has terms of use which the users of that website agree to in order to use it. It is just as applicable for restricting postings deemed to contain infringing code, as it is for restricting ads for blue pills or penny stock frauds.
And who said that any given website, newspaper or other media is obligated to be balanced and unbiased? The only person completely without bias is a person without any understanding whatsoever of the subject. That is the last person I would want to get information from on that subject.
You are either for freedom of speech/ the press, ect. or you are for censorship. There is no grey area.
Bollocks. You are introducing an absolutist and artificial ultimatum which invalidates your argument.
Furthermore, there are well established limits to free speech, based on that speech being harmful to society. The classic example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and starting a panic. Hate literature. Incitement to riot. Disclosing of trade / national secrets. Slander and libel. Perjury. Conspiring to commit a crime. Uttering threats. Do I need to go on? In Diggs case, it quite clearly, from the events, is a case of a minority of people damaging the community through their abuse of the priviledge.
