And what's your point? You don't see the difference between a free and private owned and operated website restricting access and a countries government making it totally illegal?

I'm not really making a point. I was hoping to open up the discussion on censorship in general - where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable? Is all censorship bad? Where is the line between censorship as it is obviously being practiced in Australia and 'censorship' on a 'private owned and operated website'?

The difference is that we censor links that are offtopic for HN. But countries don't have topics.

I've often wondered if websites that censor posts or allow users to bury comments that are 'off topic' shouldn't have a page where all can be seen. It would make interesting reading, and would partly counter accusations of censorship.

You can see everything that's killed on HN by setting showdead in your profile.

The difference between the two is fairly clear to anyone who has studied political theory or common law.

The difference is that in one case, you have a privately owned and operating website exercising censorship as a function of the owner's property rights.

Just as you have the right to deny a stranger entry into your home, a website owner has the right to set the rules of engagement in their properties.

Whereas,

As in the case of the Australian Gov't, ostensibly based on common law, is exercising the bludgeon of government fiat in order to ban access for all citizens outright to a particular website, and in doing so, is engaging in censorship.

There is a difference between a gov't engaging in censorship reminiscent of Stalinist-era USSR and you telling a stranger they cannot enter your home without your permission.

The division between public and private is central to nearly all modern governments, even a "communist" gov't like China makes the distinction even though that gov't does exercise power at will, more or less.

That's interesting. However, presumably the consequences of censorship on the censored individual can be equally detrimental whether it is perpetrated by the state or an individual/corporate entity?

For example, what happens if a company makes a product with a flaw that is literally killing people. Are they justified in removing a post from their web site forum that points this out? By your argument, in law, the answer is 'yes', but how does a user of product X feel about this?

Just because it is legal and should be legal doesn't mean it isn't morally reprehensible.

That's implicit in ftse's point, which is to raise the question of when censorship is moral.

I'm sorry, it is not clearly implicit to me. I might have been too hung up on whether it should be legal or not.

I read his post and think: Yes, it can be legal for the company to censor their own website, and it would not be immoral for it to be legal. But, it would be completely immoral for them to remove a post from their website without fully dealing with the problem.

Are they justified in removing a post from their web site forum that points this out? Yes, because it's their property.

That said, law doesn't prevent private individuals from setting up a website to warn others, and then googlebombing the name of the company at fault.