Earlier this week Ted Rall scolded the Human Rights Campaign for their efforts to get Universal Press Syndicate to drop Ann Coulter's column. His argument is that censorship by anyone is wrong, whether the target is on the left or the right. As someone who has been the target of such efforts in the past, Ted has more right than others to do this, but I have mixed feelings about it. In principle, I agree with the sentiment expressed by Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." On the other hand, Ann Coulter is a vile little harpy who contributes little to political discourse beyond spittle and bile. It wouldn't sadden me in the slightest to see her megaphone turned down a few notches.
So, what to think about efforts to suppress Ms. Coulter? First, I think the term "censorship" is inappropriate in this context. According to the Apple (Oxford English?) definition, censorship is "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts" (emphasis added). To my knowledge, no official entity has gotten involved in attempting to suppress either Ted Rall or Ann Coulter. Instead, what we have is an effort by individuals to do so. In my mind, this is something of a grey area, and I think an argument can be made that what we're seeing is the marketplace of ideas at work.
My own feeling is that cases like this come down to tactics. There is a big difference between writing your local newspaper or canceling your subscription and burning books or threatening violence against the person whose speech you disagree with. As long as the Human Rights Campaign doesn't devolve into thuggishness, I have no problem with their efforts.
Posted by Jason at March 11, 2007 01:00 PM