I suppose you don't call removal of LGBTP+ elements from the media released in Russia/China/MENA "censorship" either, just private companies exercising their rights, right?
> I suppose you don't call removal of LGBTP+ elements from the media released in Russia/China/MENA "censorship" either, just private companies exercising their rights, right?
I would call it censorship. But in those examples you listed, I would attribute it to the government and not the company. Because by removing those elements, they are not "exercising their rights to do so", they are "complying with local laws and regulations by doing so".
For a specific example: in Russia, "propaganda of homosexualty" (which includes something as trivial as explicitly acknowledging that one of the main characters is attracted to a person, or people in general, of the same sex) is against the law and is heavily punished.
So in reality, those companies only have two options: sell their product with those elements removed for that specific market or become unable to legally sell their product in that market at all.
Is it censorship? I would argue "yes", but I wouldn't say that the censorship is done by the company. If that action was required in order to be in compliance with local laws and regulations, I would call it for what it actually is - government censorship. After all, they are the ones making those laws and regulations that decide what is allowed and what needs to be removed.
filoleg|4 years ago
I would call it censorship. But in those examples you listed, I would attribute it to the government and not the company. Because by removing those elements, they are not "exercising their rights to do so", they are "complying with local laws and regulations by doing so".
For a specific example: in Russia, "propaganda of homosexualty" (which includes something as trivial as explicitly acknowledging that one of the main characters is attracted to a person, or people in general, of the same sex) is against the law and is heavily punished.
So in reality, those companies only have two options: sell their product with those elements removed for that specific market or become unable to legally sell their product in that market at all.
Is it censorship? I would argue "yes", but I wouldn't say that the censorship is done by the company. If that action was required in order to be in compliance with local laws and regulations, I would call it for what it actually is - government censorship. After all, they are the ones making those laws and regulations that decide what is allowed and what needs to be removed.