Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for "A Survey of Worldwide Censorship Techniques"

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

On 5/26/20 6:02 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have a concern about the use of the term “censorship”.  Is removal of fraudulent material censorship?  How about taking down a system that part of a DOS attack?  Is taking down a system that is attacking critical infrastructure censorship?  Is botnet disruption censorship?  Are FCC frequency rules against harmful interference censorship?  By the sweeping definition given, they are.  This  immediately diminishes the credibility of the work because it flies in the face of what normal people think censorship is.

It's important to remember two things: Not all governments and decision 
makers operate in good faith, or with the same legal and moral 
frameworks, so the legality of censorship can't be relied upon to define 
what is censorship. Second it is strategic to define censorship as any 
restriction on content so as to raise the cost. Because while there are 
indeed recognized legal, legitimate and proportional reasons why the 
rights to free expression and to access information should be violated, 
censorship measures should not be taken without careful consideration as 
it is a human rights matter.

This is roughly what anyone working on free expression and censorship 
would say and I'm happy to have backup from those folks on this list.

> I would propose a narrower definition, and at least some discussion to make clear that we are all handling double-edged swords.  I don’t think doing this invalidates the content that follows.  Even better would be for you to find a more value-neutral term that acknowledges the nature of the problem, although I would concede that I have no great suggestion.

Before responding a re-read the introduction to this draft and I think 
it does an excellent job of framing and narrowing the draft to exactly 
what it does and not more. Well done, Joe!

-Mallory