--On Sunday, April 10, 2016 19:15 -0400 Robert Withers
<robert(_dot_)w(_dot_)withers(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Resending to the list...and an extra thought...
If censorship rights are managed in more granularity than
nationally, perhaps the neighborhood or subdivision level, it
allows variance and differentiation, including mixed access
within an urban setting. The nation must be the union and
membership in associations may carry censorship requirements
limiting one's access by agreement. This sort of approach may
be welcomed by those regimes with real concerns regarding
'westernization' of their media. Countries may well allow
international conference attendees free access while
simultaneously protecting their children from wanting to serve
the local warlord rather than sticking to the local Civil
Defense Unit. I believe the idea has merit, perhaps reducing
slaughter.
...
On the other hand, that same kind of granularity can be used
(and often has been) to allow unrestricted access to media and
content by members of elites (or those trusted to support the
parties in power) while restricting access by those less
favored, less trusted, or with different views. Acceptance of
it does reduce slaughter too, but does so primarily by virtue of
the principle that those who avoid expressing dissent are much
less likely to be punished for dissenting than those who do
express it.
YMMD, but I'm not very happy about the direction in which the
argument above takes us.
john