Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

You're missing the point. I'm not picking nits about the name, I'm talking about the distinction between caving to pressure from an outside group, and voluntarily making a decision that happens to dovetail with current cultural norms. I don't know how you could possibly make the argument that they're remotely the same thing.

They are not current. They are proposed norms. Accepted by some and not others. And being hotly debated too.

They are current, because they reflect our culture's shifting tastes. Racist caricatures were commonplace 60 years ago, because nobody thought twice about who it might hurt. Now, things are different, and that's okay!

And patently argument that racist caricatures being unacceptable is "hotly debated," but I guess that's why we're on page 55 of this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

Who is "we"? Who exactly is printing it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

You're missing the point. I'm not picking nits about the name, I'm talking about the distinction between caving to pressure from an outside group, and voluntarily making a decision that happens to dovetail with current cultural norms. I don't know how you could possibly make the argument that they're remotely the same thing.

They are not current. They are proposed norms. Accepted by some and not others. And being hotly debated too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

I would just call it PC culture. (Cancel culture is more extreme.)

Ok, fine. In PC culture, I tentatively suggest that the standard for speech is whether or not certain racial groups are offended (or thought to be offended). The older standard was more like, being offended is not a type of harm, therefore it doesn't count. At worst, it is rude, but even there, it's not a big deal and nobody gets cancelled for rudeness.

Changing the standard has significant concequences that we are just beginning to see.

Cancelling slavery had impact too, and we are still trying to repair our society. Things take time, but I would hope people can sacrifice their outrage over "cancel culture" so we can evolve to a better place where were are more mindful and respectful of all members of our human family.

Well, I think eventually we will come to a better place, but not until your side understands what they are actually outraged about, stop belittling for them and together figure out how to make society better for everyone, including them. It starts with realizing their outrage is just as real to them as your outrage is to you whenever you are outraged by someone or something. Look at this thread. Look at how many people were outraged at me? They called me names, they insisted that I shouldn't say it, they made fun of me, or said I was promoting harmful images. All in a futile effort to get me to stop saying it. I get it. That's real outrage. That's what outrage looks like. What do you think other people feel when they express outrage?

Honestly there is way too much outrage on this thread. All of you need to save your outrage for important things. This ain't it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

You're missing the point. I'm not picking nits about the name, I'm talking about the distinction between caving to pressure from an outside group, and voluntarily making a decision that happens to dovetail with current cultural norms. I don't know how you could possibly make the argument that they're remotely the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

I would just call it PC culture. (Cancel culture is more extreme.)

Ok, fine. In PC culture, I tentatively suggest that the standard for speech is whether or not certain racial groups are offended (or thought to be offended). The older standard was more like, being offended is not a type of harm, therefore it doesn't count. At worst, it is rude, but even there, it's not a big deal and nobody gets cancelled for rudeness.

Changing the standard has significant concequences that we are just beginning to see.

Cancelling slavery had impact too, and we are still trying to repair our society. Things take time, but I would hope people can sacrifice their outrage over "cancel culture" so we can evolve to a better place where were are more mindful and respectful of all members of our human family.

Well, I think eventually we will come to a better place, but not until your side understands what they are actually outraged about, stop belittling for them and together figure out how to make society better for everyone, including them. It starts with realizing their outrage is just as real to them as your outrage is to you whenever you are outraged by someone or something. Look at this thread. Look at how many people were outraged at me? They called me names, they insisted that I shouldn't say it, they made fun of me, or said I was promoting harmful images. All in a futile effort to get me to stop saying it. I get it. That's real outrage. That's what outrage looks like. What do you think other people feel when they express outrage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

I would just call it PC culture. (Cancel culture is more extreme.)

Ok, fine. In PC culture, I tentatively suggest that the standard for speech is whether or not certain racial groups are offended (or thought to be offended). The older standard was more like, being offended is not a type of harm, therefore it doesn't count. At worst, it is rude, but even there, it's not a big deal and nobody gets cancelled for rudeness.

Changing the standard has significant concequences that we are just beginning to see.

Cancelling slavery had impact too, and we are still trying to repair our society. Things take time, but I would hope people can sacrifice their outrage over "cancel culture" so we can evolve to a better place where were are more mindful and respectful of all members of our human family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

What are you talking about? This is how things have always evolved. There is nothing new here. How do you think older mores died away?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so if school districts want to ban Playboy Magazine from schools, is that censorship?

Yes. It may be censorship that the majority agrees to, but it's still censorship.

No, it isn't. Employees generally have to do what employers tell them to do at work or be fired. (There are plenty of exceptions to this.)

Still a type of "censorship" but it's accepted that Playboy doesn't belong in school, so no one complains. The Playboy readers are 'harmed" but we've decided that they don't count.

I'm putting the words in quotes because it's not about the definition of the words. It's about that the type of action that is really the same, but society has decided to come down on one side to benefit children. Even if they had a logically airtight First Amendment case, Playboy would lose.

So nudity is bad, but racist imagery isn't? So we shouldn't cancel racist imagery?