Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
No, it isn't at all the same thing. Refusing to publish is not the same as banning. There are many reasons that certain material is not suitable for publication; content is certainly one of them.
|
But that poses the same problem: who gets to judge? If a publisher decides they personally don't want to publish something, fine, it's their call. I have no problem with that. But if someone thinks it's their right to decide for all the others what they should read and what not, then yes, I have a problem with such an attitude. I want to decide for myself what I want to read. Of course there are exceptions (mostly nonfiction - like a book teaching how to make a bomb or how to kill people, such books are directly harmful), but as to the vast majority of subjects, no one should be able to decide for me what's suitable for my reading. One publisher might refuse to publish what another accepts, or the author can self-publish, those are all valid options and perfectly ok. It's not ok to say "I think the subject matter is offensive and therefore no one should ever publish it". It might be offensive to you, but not to many other people. Unless you can prove that reading the book can cause direct harm to others, for example detailed instructions how to make a bomb that can kill people.
Anyway, that's my personal opinion. I don't think censure is ok, except for a very few exceptions.