[ SECRET POST #3003 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3003 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #429.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I don't call it self-censorship because it's not done to meet the demands of a coercive authority capable of exercising prior restraint. If you want non-governmental censorship: MPAA, Amazon, and Apple come to mind. I don't see a coercive authority in this case.

[(Anonymous)]

let me preface this by saying that I like you a lot, you always seem very chill and quite logical, so I assume I am failing to make myself clear with this.

Any time you make a choice to say one thing over another, even if there is no reason behind it other than wanting to be polite, you are censoring yourself. in this use of thee term censorship (self censorship) the criteria to qualify is shockingly low level, so "I decided not to release it" is self censorship even if the reason was simply that he decided he'd rather not release the cover. As I say in this case the censorship is minor, and self inflicted. If his bosses had told him they were pulling the cover, the censorship would have been DC self censoring, and still not a free speech issue.

If threats of an attack, lawsuit, boycotting, political action etc etc etc had cause the cover to be pulled, it would have been a much more grey area. I think it would have been censorship (Maybe not boycotting. People choosing not to buy something is their own prerogative) but as I say this was not the case so, to reiterate: I do not believe this is anything close to a free speech issue.

My main problem is the idea in this thread that censorship and free speech issues are exclusively tied to the government. Anyone with enough power is capable of impeding another person's free speech. Anyone with enough power is capable of censoring another person. and everyone has enough power to censor themselves (Tourettes sufferers not withstanding), but that is not a free speech issue.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I think you're clear. I just don't agree. I think that crying "censorship" on an interpersonal or grass-roots basis has become something similar to a Godwin, a discussion-killing meme. I really can't take seriously that people like me have censored Orson Scott Card, who cracked the NYT Bestseller lists with multiple books when Ender's Game was in theaters.