Reader's Response

A response to Dan Snyder’s “Reading Books in the Time of Censorship”

I respond to this not to nitpick but because, when we discuss censorship, speaking factually is key to the dialogue; after all, something demonstrably false is not censored if called out for what it is.

The phrase "in reference to an illusory free press" suggests, to this reader, that "alternative facts" (as coined by Kellyanne Conway in defense of Sean Spicer) might refer to something truthful that was not reported by so-called mainstream media. I fully own that I might be misinterpreting the author's intent through this turn of phrase, but the "alternative facts" in this case were not "alternative" because the "illusory free press" refused to print or share them; they were alternative because they were simply not true--in this case, inflating the number of those who attended Trump's inauguration.

Additionally, I disagree that the Dr. Seuss debacle is a worthy example of censorship unless "self-censorship" (an intriguing concept) exists, for the holding company of Seuss' books (Dr. Seuss Enterprises) willingly pulled the six troublesome tomes from their publications rather than in response to public outcry. Whether or not the images causing problems are actually offensive is up to the reader, but to uphold this situation as an example of censorship is also simply not true.