-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I often have the same difficulty when speaking with Objectivists. They define "censorship" as "silencing the speaker by force", which is a fine and useful definition, but suppose we want to talk about a similar phenomenon which does not involve force? For example, the magnate who owns all the newspapers, television stations, bookstores and movie theatres in a small town decides that never again will homosexuality be publically mentioned in any of these venues. Force? No. "Censorship"? Not by _that_ definition, but what _is_ it? We need a new word, or else we have to continue using "censorship" to mean both of those things. I sometimes use "violent-censorship" and "non-violent-censorship" in conversation. As long as we continue to try to overload "censorship" we will waste much of our dialogue energy on semantic quibbling or pure misunderstanding. Regards, Zooko -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMoMarEjbHy8sKZitAQGzZQL+OuobcXVKg8bU1FIgdIZl/0i2QZ/5McmC W//HUMtT+5D4sejWstVqkk2taB+jD9ctyKtgFIjIXOJdddsAAbd/Tbjr0TjuCMC4 FmagUDtrDD3tQOwiIXnb2rDit+GrfGPB =X6N3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----