More on Censorship

John writes:

I read your material on a semi-regular basis, but I think you're way off the mark with your evaluation of censorship in your most recent piece "Censor this Column". Censorship is strictly an act of control. I.e. exercising control over the content of a particular piece of media, preventing it from being shown in part or in it's entirety. "Control" denotes superiority. In this case, I happen to agree with the NY Times.
My dictionary defines the verb censorship as "to examine and expurgate" Censorship is not withdrawing an invitation to speak. Censorship is not an editor deciding not to run an particular op/ed piece. Nether of
these two acts expurgates (from the Latin expurgo - "To cleanse") material. The questions of "why?" "what?" and "who?" don't really enter into it.
As far as I am aware you can still read Mr. Churchill's comments almost anywhere, as they are now far more popular than they were prior to this event.

True. This was, in fact, my final observation in this week's column. However, a definition of censorship worded as tightly as "your dictionary's" renders the term meaningless. After all, the White Rose resistance movement of Nazi Germany had the ability to disseminate its anti-Hitler leaflets; all they needed was access to a mimeograph machine. But they were, nevertheless, censored by the state and its media. Neither they nor their ideological allies could see their opinions voiced in a national forum. Yes, access is determined by control--and that control, if exercised based on either taste or political reasons, becomes censorship.
Censorship, it can be argued (though not by me), isn't always bad. But it is censorship nevertheless and the censors should be willing to admit it.

Seems to me that your argument is that private entities should be compelled to endorse ideas they may not necessarily agree with.

Certainly not. In the case of Ward Churchill, he was invited by Hamilton College to speak about Indian politics. Whatever Churchill would have said about Indian activism would not have necessarily been endorsed, even implicitly, merely by providing a forum for discussion. Given that he was disinvited because of his remarks about 9/11, an unrelated matter, no one would have believed that Hamilton was endorsing his thoughts.
When I appear on Fox News, for example, does Fox News implicitly endorse my views? Highly doubtful.

At some point you're running afoul of their rights to freedom of speech
(by preventing someone from speaking at their facility with whom they happen to disagree with). If a right wing conservative wanted to use your website or your column space to run their ideas, would you agree to do that? If not, are you censoring them?

This raises the question of whether my blog is a "publication" or public forum. Perhaps, perhaps not, I dunno. It came up when I first started the blog when Republican readers asked why I didn't provide a comments section. I decided not to do so after perusing other blogs that contained such comments. With few exceptions, I found the comments to be dominated by obsessive, juvenile, and utterly worthless remarks. They added nothing to the discussion except stupid insults. If, however, a productive back and forth between me and some right-wingers were possible to achieve in this forum, I would happily do so. Until then, yes, I am censoring them.

Of course you're not. On the other hand if the government takes your column and decides to clip portions of it, now you're talking expurgation. If someone is jailed to prevent them from speaking in public...that's expurgation. You're merely crying wolf over a matter of personal preference. Honestly it detracts from many of the good liberal issues you raise week in and week out.

They're not liberal issues, they're American issues. Speaking of which:

Ann Coulter Call Out

The rumor mill has it that that coward Ann Coulter called me and Al Franken "America haters" yesterday morning on C-SPAN. If anyone saw it or has a transcript, please write chet@rall.com. If true, this slanderous nonsense has got to stop.

Iraq

Jason spits:

So I suppose that you've heard about the latest act of courage and patriotism performed by your noble insurgent allies. If not, here's a little quote from CNN - "Four explosions ripped through Baghdad on Friday, leaving at least 20 people dead and dozens wounded as Shiite Muslims observed the holy period of Ashura, authorities said. Three of the blasts -- two suicide bombings and a rocket attack -- targeted Shiite mosques, officials said." What wonderful people. I can see why you respect them so much. You remain a sick and disgusting man. And your side will lose.

Readers know that I predicted that a US invasion would lead to civil war in Iraq. Congrats, Mr. Bush--you got exactly what you should have expected. If nothing else, Saddam knew that Iraq could only be held together by harsh dictatorship; removing him necessarily led to the present situation. Too bad the dildos in the Administration and their allies in American state media didn't prepare for the inevitable.
"My side"? It might take a while, Jason, but I'm an optimist. American patriots will prevail over the psychotic neofascists like you.