Remembering the Paris 12 Part III
       A boycott is not censorship. Censorship is when the government restricts your freedom of speech. Censorship is imposed from the outside. Self-censorship is imposed from within. An individual or group decides to censor themselves for whatever reasons they see fit. It may seem wrong to others, but it is their right, and it is not censorship by government. And here is where the line gets fuzzy. Extortion and violence by terrorists can also cause self-censorship; the terrorism is wrong, but the victims have a right to self-censorship. Not all essayists and cartoonists are as brave as the Paris 12 martyrs, but every journalist and editor has to decide that issue for themselves.
       A boycott is not censorship, but nor is it self-censorship. When you ignore something or refuse to have anything to do with it, it has not been censored; it still exists, unrestricted. I like to know who the racists and war mongers are, but after I've heard all the stupid racist rants and heard all the self-serving right-wing excuses for perpetuating war, I get tired of it and I invoke my "opportunity costs" rule of philosophical economics. I have better things to read and write about. so I boycott them. Everyone knows that only 1 person boycotting something has absolutely no effect on the target of the boycott. That's why social activists call for large groups of people to boycott things of which they disapprove. And that brings us to the topics of government and corporations.
       We already established that censorship by the government is wrong, but also that boycotts are not censorship. That is why government economic sanctions against other racist and/or terrorist governments is a legitimate tactic. But now we get into a really sticky problem here. Both individuals and groups (corporate bodies) have the right to free speech. Even non-democratic corporate bodies? If a corporate entity is run by a dictator, and his personal free speech is in direct conflict with the free speech of everybody under him, isn't that censorship? Because I am a journalist, I will use a hypothetical newspaper as an example. Suppose the whole staff of this hypothetical newspaper decided that they wanted to run some cartoons about Catholics being against, not only abortion, but also against birth control methods which would have made abortion unnecessary in the first place, and furthermore, that their ideas are based on questionable interpretations of scriptures of questionable origin, but accepted on blind faith, not on logic or critical thinking. But now suppose that the publisher, or the editor, of this hypothetical newspaper (or magazine) decided to self-censor the controversial cartoons in the name of cultural sensitivity. If he was running his own blog, or a small one-person publication of handbills and flyers, it would be legitimate self-censorship, and he would have a right to it. If the majority of the staff of the newspaper agreed with him, by a democratic vote, that would also be legitimate self-censorship. But in this case it is censorship, but not by a government, we are still theorizing within the realm of the private sector. So what are the options of the majority of the staff who want to publish the "culturally offensive" material? For one thing, they can boycott the publication either by staging a strike or just quitting their jobs and going on to another publication before the publisher could fire them for then strike. But if they couldn't get work elsewhere they would lose their salaries and medical benefits, which means that the publisher is actually extorting, (blackmailing) them into submission. I really do not have an answer to that problem because, having been a journalist for other publications in the past, I am now in the position of an independent blogger. To self-censor or not, that is the question.
       So, who am I to criticize other people's religious beliefs? My religious policy is "Don't ask, don't tell." It is nobody's business what my spiritual beliefs are, and I would not care about other people's beliefs if they were violently stuffing it in our faces by their actions. The freedom to believe stupid ideas does not logically translate into the "right" to freedom of action. Stay tuned for by blog tomorrow, when I will explain my own spiritual beliefs.
Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!! If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one week publishing diatribes against stupid religious beliefs, offensive or not, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for intellectual and cultural progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.