Quote:

I think it's more accurate to not call it censorship. Just because someone has something to say doesn't mean a private company has to provide them the forum in which to say it, or the forum for you to obtain it. If Barnes and Noble or Walmart doesn't carry the book/music, whatever, because they deem it unpalatable, they're not preventing the author from selling it somewhere else in the work's current form. It's not censorship -- self, or otherwise. If they say "we'll carry it, but only if you bleep out the swearwords", that's still not censorship -- they're telling the author what the requirements are for selling something in their venue, and it's up to the author to decide if he/she is willing to change the work to suit. Now, if B&N or Walmart carried the titles, but modified the content without the author's consent (and/or knowledge) to fit their view of what's palatable for sale -- that is censorship.


I agree 100% that the stores should not be obligated to sell everything that comes their way. But when they do this, they are, in effect, censoring. As a reminder, the dictionary definition of "censorship" contains both "suppress" and "delete." I am not arguing that Wal*Mart "deletes" objectionable content, but by choosing what to sell and what not to sell, they are indeed suppressing. And, I would argue that the buying power of a Wal*Mart or a Barnes and Noble can (and has) prevented a lot of books from ever seeing the light of day.


Quote:

Obviously, once the government gets involved (replace B&N and Walmart with Canada and USA, or some other countries), and it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Please tell me where corporate America ends and the U.S. Government begins. And please, show your work.


Edited by tonyc (26/02/2007 19:33)