...censorship is the act irrespective of intent...
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
...censorship is the act irrespective of intent...
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?
Deontological ethics
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
(IFF) censorship is the effect (THEN) a news outlet that prefers to publish national news and ignores local news (or vice-versa) is de facto censoring the news stories it doesn't publish.
Does this standard sound consistent with your "censorship is the effect" framework?
The difference between ignoring and removing is contingent on MOTIVATION.
The "effect" is identical.
Now it's "not motive alone"? Exactly how much motive is relevant in your opinion, and what mysterious "other factors" do you consider critical in determining if something is "censored" or not?
So, just for clarity's sake, If someone goes to a newspaper and begs them to write a story about how puppies are being slaughtered or some-such, and the newspaper doesn't write that story, instead they feature the grand-opening of a new ice-cream parlor on their front page, would you consider that "passive ignoring" or "active avoiding"?