From: Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 03:34:15 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Need a new word for non-violent-censorship
Message-ID: <199611081134.MAA16008@digicash.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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?


We need a new word, or else we have to continue using
"censorship" to mean both of those things.  I sometimes use
"violent-censorship" and "non-violent-censorship" in
conversation.


As long as we continue to try to overload "censorship" we will
waste much of our dialogue energy on semantic quibbling or pure
misunderstanding.


Regards,

Zooko




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMoMarEjbHy8sKZitAQGzZQL+OuobcXVKg8bU1FIgdIZl/0i2QZ/5McmC
W//HUMtT+5D4sejWstVqkk2taB+jD9ctyKtgFIjIXOJdddsAAbd/Tbjr0TjuCMC4
FmagUDtrDD3tQOwiIXnb2rDit+GrfGPB
=X6N3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----