There is a distinction between open government and censorship. Not releasing information is different than banning people from sharing information. It's related, but definitely not the same as censorship.
The problem is this treats the government as a single entity with a uniform will: yes, if you do that, then the government is merely failing to act rather than deliberately censoring anything.
However the government isnt a single entity, it is many smaller kingdoms. And The King is censoring one of his princes internally: preventing the EPA from releasing data it would like to.
We're not a fucking monarchy. The entirety of the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the president.
And he's entirely within his rights to shut programs down; that isn't censorship. Learn your definitions lest you serve as a strawman for the other side of the argument.
Erdogan is preventing journalists and private individuals from publishing (or even talking about in some cases) their opinions. He does it to hide his own crimes.
This is obviously very different from shutting down a government program. Trump is the employer of those people. He can tell them what to do. They are free to go home and say whatever they want, even about these decisions (and they are, in fact doing that).
Censorship would be Trump arresting the journalists that reported this.
I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal.
Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law? You call what Erdogan does criminal, but I'm under the impression you're using "the letter of the law" as a measure for Trump, and "what's ethical" for Erdogan.
As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
> I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal.
I don't understand that. Surely this was plainly clear during the election ... and the electorate made it's viewpoint clear. Therefore in my opinion it is not just morally right, but an actual moral duty for the US government to at least tone down the climate research.
We live in a government for the people, by the people. It is NOT a government for the climate. US government climate actions are predicated upon a majority of the US population not just agreeing in principle, but willing to pay (a lot I might add) to make it happen.
> Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law?
Yes.
> As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
I fail to see how this is even a little strange. Did you know Obama did the same ? And so did Bush and Clinton. All have removed reporters and refused questions.
And frankly, in most cases, for pretty good reasons. At least in the Trump and Obama cases I've seen the videos, and ... I mean sorry. I may not agree with Trump, but I agree that those reporters went too far, were warned a few times, and when they insisted, the president walked away. That, to me, doesn't seem controversial at all. I don't think I'd have similar patience, I especially would not have the patience Obama had with reporters (remember ? The birth certificate. Perhaps (being flexible with perhaps) it was a newsworthy question for a week or two, but 2 years later they were still pestering him)
Incorrect, if you define of 'censorship' as the illegal suppression of information, as I and others do.
Any structural changes (including withholding information - or will you no longer complacently consent to living under a system wherein secret classifications exist?) are entirely legal, and so not 'censorship'.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea, but the system you're in does not magically adapt to suit your ideals in any given system. If you're not going to understand it well enough to understand where it needs to change, you're just going to be a waste of time for anyone wishing to discuss means to do so, and so not worth engaging for those people.
No, it isn't. I have looked at several definitions now and none match yours, indeed explicitly the reverse.
I don't know why you keep prattling on when its clear everywhere you look for this defintion it is the reverse. It has nothing to do with an act of government. Government may censor, but so may a private individual: a publisher can censor an author, etc.
It is merely the withholding of information on political or moral grounds.
"to "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable. Censorship is the name for the process or idea of keeping things like obscene word or graphic images from an audience. There is also such a thing as self-censorship, which is when you refrain from saying certain things — or possibly re-wording them — depending on who is listening."
"to remove anything offensive from books, films, etc., or to remove parts considered unsuitable from private letters, especially ones sent during war or from a prison:"
