Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldim
I am surprised about this statement. Unfortunately, censorship reaches far beyond the realm of governments. In particular readers writing to an editor of a magazine requesting certain pieces or opinions not to be published are de facto asking for censorship.
Editor based censorship is, in my opinion, just ad despicable as censorship by government.
|
This makes absolutely no sense.
You can't publish everything. Editors, by definition, pick and choose what they're going to publish. Yet you are suggesting that some criteria, as determined by you, are unacceptable to use - or are you arguing that all selection criteria are unacceptable? How exactly would that work? Again, you can't publish everything.
Arguing that editors shouldn't be allowed to choose what they publish in their space, based on whatever criteria (personal choice, the requests of their readers, the requests or demands of their employers, etc etc) is arguing for a bizarre and utterly unworkable publishing space.
The members of SFWA pay the editor's salary. They're allowed to determine, via their elected officials, what gets paid for and published in their magazine. To argue otherwise is to argue, in essence, for the end of private property and free speech.
They don't have a media monopoly, and there are a gazillion spaces that people can publish their sexist guff. No speech is being suppressed by the members of SFWA having their say.