Quote:
This IS a question broader than this one example, though. For example, what if some mega-chain bookstore decides to stop selling a book because they believe it to be offensive to most people. Is this censorship or so-called self-censorship? Should they have the right to do that?
With this example, you're conflating "self censorship" and plain ol' "censorship." Barnes and Noble or Borders don't produce content, they distribute it. By refusing to carry controversial books/movies/music, they are not censoring themselves, they are censoring someone else.
What you speak of is not a hypothetical, of course, it happens every day. Stores that sell these items regularly refuse to carry certain controversial/profane titles. Wal*Mart is famous for this, and unapologetic about it. But, despite my distaste for Wal*Mat on many levels, I don't see why they should have to carry anything they don't want to. But I think it's much more accurate to call this "censorship" than "self censorship" unless it's a division of Wal*Mart that produced the content. It just happens to be a very limited category of censorship that I think is acceptable, because it's no more right to tell them what they must sell than it is to tell me what I cannot buy.
Previous Topic
Index
