Friday, December 29, 2006

Language

Yes, this is an older article, but I was reading it recently and was quite frustrated by some of the language. No, it wasn't cussing, or anything like that, merely a misunderstanding of the English language (possibly deliberate). The article compares Google and Wal-Mart, both good and bad (though with more emphasis on the latter). The last section is entitled "Allegations of censorship:"

Wal-Mart: Won't stock magazines with racy material (Maxim, FHM and Stuff) and partially conceals the covers of certain women's magazines; won't carry music albums with explicit or profane lyrics, or albums that contain lyrics critical of Wal-Mart. (One famous example: In 1996, Wal-Mart refused to sell a Sheryl Crow CD containing lyrics that heaped scorn on the company for selling guns.)
• Google: Blocks users in Germany, France and Switzerland from accessing sites that contain potentially racist content or hate speech. Amended terms and conditions to bar criticism of the company's AdSense service terms and conditions. Allows advertising for beer and wine but not for hard liquor, and won't accept ads for guns. Amended AdSense policy so that affiliates are barred from criticizing Google on their sites.


I might agree with labeling the first practice listed for Google as censorship, it is limiting access to information. However, it is most likely in accord with national laws such as those prohibiting Holocaust denial. We may not always agree with such laws, but they are the law of the land in those countries (for the record I don't deny the Holocaust, but I believe that it is dangerous to make non-dangerous speech illegal--and you must decide if Holocaust denial constitutes dangerous speech).

The Wal-Mart allegation is ludicrous! Wal-Mart isn't prohibiting you from buying those racy magazines at all, you just can't purchase them in their store. You can still go to your nearest adult (I hate that term as it is applied) bookstore or corner grocery-store and pick up the same material. The store simply chooses to be family friendly and they are accused of censorship. Is it censorship to refuse to carry a certain product for whatever reason? Or is it only censorship here because Wal-Mart doesn't like the content?

~Matt

--
"A room without books is as a body without a soul." -Cicero

No comments: