Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.

Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds. Because of this, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy.

Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When overused, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.

The term "censorship" is often used as a pejorative term to signify a belief that a group controlling certain information is using this control improperly or for its own benefit, or preventing others from accessing information that should be made readily accessible (often so that conclusions drawn can be verified).

________________________________

On Internet websites which invite users to post comments, a moderation system is the method the webmaster chooses to sort contributions which are irrelevant, obscene, illegal or insulting from contributions which are useful or informative.

Various types of Internet sites permit user comments, for example Internet forums, blogs, and news sites powered by scripts such as phpBB, a Wiki or PHP-Nuke. Depending on the site's content and intended audience, the webmaster will decide what kinds of user comments are appropriate, then delegate the responsibility of sifting through comments to their moderators. Most often webmasters will attempt to eliminate trolling, spamming, or flaming, although this varies widely from site to site.

P.S. All the above is copy and paste, in other words, they are not of my making, but are only a starting point for reasonable discussion.

Thank You Sister . . .

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Hm... Sister, Don't know what to add to your post. Wise words indeed, wise words.

Oh one thing. In my youth I was taught that knowledge means power, and an advantage in knowledge means an advantage in power - so if people are withholding information they just keep their advantage.

What about equality of chances?

---

Account frozen...

Sounds reasonable to me,

Thank you, Sister.




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Hm... Sister, Don't know what to add to your post. Wise words indeed, wise words.

Oh one thing. In my youth I was taught that knowledge means power, and an advantage in knowledge means an advantage in power - so if people are withholding information they just keep their advantage.

What about equality of chances?

One of the reasons for the contracts in Law between the state and an individual called Intellectual Property.

The restrictions on others to use the knowledge of a Patient will protect the inventor, and holder, for 20 years, provided the license fee is paid. In this case, subject to paying the fees, the inventor will have spent much effort and resource to bring their idea to market.

This is censorship of a different kind.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Hm... Sister, Don't know what to add to your post. Wise words indeed, wise words.

Oh one thing. In my youth I was taught that knowledge means power, and an advantage in knowledge means an advantage in power - so if people are withholding information they just keep their advantage.

What about equality of chances?

One of the reasons for the contracts in Law between the state and an individual called Intellectual Property.

The restrictions on others to use the knowledge of a Patient will protect the inventor, and holder, for 20 years, provided the license fee is paid. In this case, subject to paying the fees, the inventor will have spent much effort and resource to bring their idea to market.

This is censorship of a different kind.

I know one (the Electrics and Physics teacher in a former job training I attended) who was sued because of violating patent laws, only because he went public with an invention of his own one (1) week after another guy in another part of Germany brought a similar device to the patent office and paid the expensive patent fees. Both had invented similar things independently at nearly the same time. But the other guy was faster. If they'd entered that office in their different areas at the same time - whose intellectual property would this invention be?

---

Account frozen...

Both had invented similar things independently at nearly the same time. But the other guy was faster. If they'd entered that office in their different areas at the same time - whose intellectual property would this invention be?

The other guy's. Because he was faster. Duh.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

One problem I have seen is that many people believe censorship is always illegal, but it is not. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press guarantee that the government can not censor certain things, but there is a lot of information that can be censored: Sister Edith mentioned a number of things that can be properly "censored", even by the government. Then there is information that individuals or organizations simply choose not to disseminate. This is not censorship either--you can keep your personal secrets.

"Posting rules" that prohibit certain discussions, perhaps to avoid the turmoil such discussions have caused in the past, are not censorship, nor is enforcement of those rules. This is even more apparent when an alternative is provided for such discussions in a place where the expected turmoil can be avoided. The claim that moderators who enforce posting rules on a public Internet forum are practicing censorship is not accurate. Too often that claim is nothing more than an inflammatory argument made to bend the moderator's actions to the will of the poster who does not want to follow the rules.

Perhaps I should change the title to ADD's?

Both had invented similar things independently at nearly the same time. But the other guy was faster. If they'd entered that office in their different areas at the same time - whose intellectual property would this invention be?

The other guy's. Because he was faster. Duh.

For a long time in the past I thought everyone who withheld information except private stuff had something to hide...
I thought the entire world had a right to get information about everything -- in politics, in economics, in military, you name it I included it.
I thought that even research had to be shared to the world that the community of the world could all be a part of the research, and participate in its results for it...
Maybe it was because grew up in a country where it was very problematic to get information as long as you weren't working for the "Ministry".
Then I got an Internet connection, an I got access to more information than I bargained for.
But still there is censorship - and it's becoming harder to find unbiased information which were censored by others. Sometimes it's not only the withholding of information, like taking away posts and articles... sometimes it's also falsifying of information (eg. making a 500 out of 3,500 demonstrators; and changing the relation of heavily injured demonstrators vs slightly injured injured cops into its opposite as happened in the "center" German press); or filtering out inconvenient data, or even putting real sentences into a new context, changing the opinion of the statement into its opposite, just to fit into the political opinion of the editor.

---

Account frozen...

One problem I have seen is that many people believe censorship is always illegal, but it is not. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press guarantee that the government can not censor certain things, but there is a lot of information that can be censored: Sister Edith mentioned a number of things that can be properly "censored", even by the government. Then there is information that individuals or organizations simply choose not to disseminate. This is not censorship either--you can keep your personal secrets.

"Posting rules" that prohibit certain discussions, perhaps to avoid the turmoil such discussions have caused in the past, are not censorship, nor is enforcement of those rules. This is even more apparent when an alternative is provided for such discussions in a place where the expected turmoil can be avoided. The claim that moderators who enforce posting rules on a public Internet forum are practicing censorship is not accurate. Too often that claim is nothing more than an inflammatory argument made to bend the moderator's actions to the will of the poster who does not want to follow the rules.

How many countries actually have freedom of speech/expression written into their laws/constitution? Thus giving this right to its citizens?

I have heard that Australia does not have any freedom of speech/expression in its laws, thus there is no legal right for its citizens (including me) to have freedom of speech/expression. This may have changed or my source fluffed the truth. Either way, it seems there is an implied freedom of speech/expression right in Australia for us Aussies. But that does not give us the right to say whatever we want. There are limits, including that it is illegal for one to defame another. (I would think most places have something like this too).

And more interesting. Whose freedom of speech laws do I have to follow when I post here? The US, because the SETI boards are hosted on a server that resides in the US or Australia (assuming we have such) because that is where I am typing this message, reside and are a citizen of?

Now give me a second before you stir up the storm.
"Tactical, raise shields. Helm, find us something we can hide behind."

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.

For a long time in the past I thought everyone who withheld information except private stuff had something to hide...
I thought the entire world had a right to get information about everything -- in politics, in economics, in military, you name it I included it.
I thought that even research had to be shared to the world that the community of the world could all be a part of the research, and participate in its results for it...
Maybe it was because grew up in a country where it was very problematic to get information as long as you weren't working for the "Ministry".
Then I got an Internet connection, an I got access to more information than I bargained for.
But still there is censorship - and it's becoming harder to find unbiased information which were censored by others. Sometimes it's not only the withholding of information, like taking away posts and articles... sometimes it's also falsifying of information (eg. making a 500 out of 3,500 demonstrators; and changing the relation of heavily injured demonstrators vs slightly injured injured cops into its opposite as happened in the "center" German press); or filtering out inconvenient data, or even putting real sentences into a new context, changing the opinion of the statement into its opposite, just to fit into the political opinion of the editor.

Perhaps this will give you something to think about. I got it from a Japanese anime series (of all places), but it seemed quite true and powerful.

"Justice is but the aggregate interests of the common good. History is nothing more than a record book written for the convenience of its author."

(Ruri). MB/MS Nadesico, Ep. 23 (as presented by the English subtitles).

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.