There ought to be a different word for each of these concepts:
1. State censorship -- where the government actively suppresses certain materials
versus
2. Organizational or market censorship -- where those who control access to certain markets (including stuff like "the scientific community" of respected peer-reviewed journals) deny access to certain ideas.
The difference is important because the state is backed by the force of law and leaves fewer options for working around/under/through the restrictions. It's the difference between "if you say that again, you'll go to jail or suffer other penalties" and "nobody will publish my crackpot conspiracy theories!"
The rule of law in the US (at least theoretically) should promote diversity of ideas -- they're good for democracy as well as for an open market. Unfortunately, monopolies thwart those inbuilt controls rather effectively.
no subject
There ought to be a different word for each of these concepts:
1. State censorship -- where the government actively suppresses certain materials
versus
2. Organizational or market censorship -- where those who control access to certain markets (including stuff like "the scientific community" of respected peer-reviewed journals) deny access to certain ideas.
The difference is important because the state is backed by the force of law and leaves fewer options for working around/under/through the restrictions. It's the difference between "if you say that again, you'll go to jail or suffer other penalties" and "nobody will publish my crackpot conspiracy theories!"
The rule of law in the US (at least theoretically) should promote diversity of ideas -- they're good for democracy as well as for an open market. Unfortunately, monopolies thwart those inbuilt controls rather effectively.