There have been similar criticisms of Wal-Mart for refusing to carry books with certain "bad language" or even "unacceptable content". In some cases, a "Wal-Mart edition" is created that meets Wal-Mart's standards and this edition is different from the edition sold through other markets. In other cases, the author doesn't feel too strongly about the language and a revised edition is produced and released through all markets. And, there are cases where the author has insisted on keeping the book as written and recognizes that the book will not be sold through Wal-Mart.
An interesting case was Susan Grant's book
Contact which Wal-Mart chose not to carry in 2002 because the theme of a 747 airliner being sucked into a spaceship was too close to the 747 hi-jackings of 9/11.
I think both Phogg and the other side make interesting points. As a point of law, "censorship" may only apply to a government or quasi-governmental agency (such as a school district), but the word in and of itself does not require any such weight.
Merriam-Webster online:
Quote:
Main Entry: cenˇsorˇship
1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors ; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
Main Entry: censor
Inflected Form(s): cenˇsored; cenˇsorˇing
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news> ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>
|
There is nothing in these definitions that states that the one doing the censoring is in an official or governmental position. All I can see is an implication that censorship is performed by one with enough power to do so. A parent censors which TV shows, movies, music, or books enter their homes and are accessed by her children. In fact, even "self censorship" is a valid concept -- I have the power to censor what I buy/read/eat/hear/think.