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?
"Monopoly", or editorial policy and it is solved by buying a press of some kind, from a letter press to a photocopier, and printing all the news he does, and doesn't.
We need a new word, or else we have to continue using
No, we just need to use the words we have properly.
"censorship" to mean both of those things. I sometimes use "violent-censorship" and "non-violent-censorship" in conversation.
"Violent-censorship" is when you [shoot beat kill] the speaker, "non- violent" is when you imprison, or consficate the means of speech/replication of speach, or otherwise "silence" without physcial force. Then you have censorship by intimidation, which is a little harder to qualify. If I threaten to burn your press if you talk about Crypto, or print Crypto algorythms, is that censorship? IMO, yes. If you _choose_ not to discuss Crypto because you understand (or are afraid of) the implications of it, that is NOT censorship, any more than my refusal to discuss sports because I can't understand the appeal or because I think that sports are generally a bad thing. Choice is not censorship, removal of choice is. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com