Censorship? Or not? What would you do?

Take a look at this letter to the editor of http://voiceofsandiego.org and then think about it...

Speaking Out
SHAWN McMILLAN,
SAN DIEGO
September 30, 2005

Our country was founded by great thinkers, and philosophers whose ideas where deemed seditious and revolutionary at the time. Much of what they published in support of what they believed in, and what they were fighting for, was published anonymously.

There is a reason for this. The ideas they espoused potentially subjected them to considerable risk. Many of the greatest thinkers our nation has ever known, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Jay and Paine among others, would not have raised the hue and cry, if they had been required at the outset to lay personal claim to the ideas and arguments they expressed, for to do so would have meant certain peril. Although the consequences are not nearly so dire today, the same principles hold true.

In order to foster a lively debate where the citizenry are encouraged to delve deeply into the issues of the day, it is critical that concerned citizens be able to communicate their ideas without fear of reprisal or reprimand. Policies that require the identification of authors of controversial, or potentially controversial pieces, do not promote the public good, or a vibrant and unbridled discussion of the critical issues facing our city today. To the contrary in fact, the debate is stifled. Many of the players in the drama that is unfolding before us have much to lose if they offend the opposition, or if they are perceived as traitorous to their respective political parties and the powerful men who control those parties.

Voice of San Diego purports to support the “free marketplace of ideas.” And, up to this point, I think that they have. However, the Chief Editor’s decision to refrain from publishing anonymous letters is tantamount to censorship.

Out of consideration of the “political” consequences of openly supporting one candidate over another, or one set of ideas over another, some authors may refrain from delving too deeply into the short comings of their parties, the party leadership, or the candidates.

The natural result of this “consideration,” is self-censorship. Censorship, no matter how it is imposed, strikes a deadly blow to freedom of the press, and the foundations of our democracy. I am disappointed in your decision to say the least. To paraphrase Chief Joseph: I shall write no more, forever.

Remember, they killed Socrates for his ideas. He would have been better off to remain silent.

Editor's note: Voice does not censor letters to the editor and does not limit the number or frequency of submissions by individual authors. However, Voice will attempt to verify their authenticity by confirming the authors. Letters written anonymously or under pseudonyms will not be accepted.

Wrap...