like to see them censored (banned completely.).

and criticism is saying that this movie is stupid.

It's kind of hard to take people seriously when all they have to offer is a statement that a certain book is bad. I'd need to see what's bad about it to be able to agree with that.

Then no one should criticize Palin's new network until we sit down and watch it?

although that line can be vague and wiggly at times. Maybe most of the time.

Calling for the banning of a movie, arresting speakers for their speech, book burning parties, etc are definitely censorship if done by the state. That's by definition.

If done by private parties it gets a little trickier, but in the grand scheme of things I think we can call that censorship if it works.

Even trickier is anyone not so much calling for banning, but pushing the point that, say, only degenerates and potential criminals will get anything out of the work so beware of anyone promoting or viewing it. It's not that hard to demonize a work so that it goes away; and that's not strictly censorship by definition, but comes to the same end.

And just where does public opinion become important? If a cable station decides to avoid hassles by not showing pro-choice matter in Mississippi or a documentary critical of Sam Houston in Texas, what do we call that?

Criticism is simply saying that a thing sucks, but there is nothing implying that you shouldn't see it other than good taste. Or maybe you should see it as an example of extreme suckitude. And, criticism at its best is educational-- telling you why a thing sucks and inviting discussion as to why it might not suck after all and may even be a good thing. (Of course, criticism also tells you why some things are great, but it's not positive criticism we're talking about here.)

Those threads would be hilarious if they weren't teeth-clenching at times. Old wounds ripped open, ancient battles repeated... The alerts posted are telling. I wish we could see all jury results so we could see how many alerts overall are vindictive and childish, showing, or caring for, little understanding of the post itself.

And some replies have you shaking your head at times...

"Left-handed women tend to have lousy penmanship."

"How dare you insult women, you sexist misogynistic pig!"

Is it a good thing that we all now know how to spell "misogynist"?

No one is victim of censorship here, but claiming you are apparently gives you some moral high ground.

No one has any control over what goes on in the bedrooms of others in any event. Short of actual assault/rape, the law stays out of it.

Criticizing some sexual practice as saying you don't like it or even not recommending it to others is not censorship or being the fun police - it's merely criticizing.

I recommend no one eat ice cream - it's fattening. So what, that doesn't stop anyone from eating it.

I was reading over a list of the most overrated and underrated Sci-Fi and Fantasy books last night and the guy panned a few of my favorites. I understood his general criticisms and partially agreed but he left out the fun factor and just took the works too serious.

That, to me, is criticizing a book/author.

Claiming that a work is more or less "bad" is different. It implies more of a moral failing to society which is, in my view, an attempt to steer people away from something for your own moral reasons.

It is like pointing to a nude statue and expressing shock and dismay and telling people not to look simply based on it being nude versus expressing an opinion on the actual artwork itself.

50 shades, from that I did read of it, is crap writing. I get more joy from reading one of my old Isaac Asimov sci-fi mags I have downloaded and that includes the ads which are better written (Asimov himself though...not my favorite author).

The problem I am seeing people have is that it is popular and does not portray sex how they think it should be portrayed and are looking for a way to try to make people 'feel' bad about the book and telling them why they should hate it on moral grounds.

And to express that stupidity and wrongness verbally. We all have the right to a really bad opinion.

I could give a crap about 50 Shades of Gray (am interested in good writing, am not interested in BDSM) and will not be seeing the movie. I watched the trailer and it looked awful. I did in fact think the trailer seemed to be portraying a set-up to an abusive relationship, and that's not entertaining for me.

But what really burns me up is reading the posts that say things like, "sex practices are none of your business", or "you don't have the right to say X thing about whatever". EVERYTHING is my fucking business, in the sense that I get to have thoughts about it, right, wrong, or indifferent, because I am a human being and I live in this world and I observe things and I have a mind.

I would never legislate what anyone does in their bedroom, but I'm not going to self-censor having thoughts about it or anything else in the world, and I also reserve the right to express my thoughts about it or anything else if I feel like doing so and am willing to accept the potential consequences thereafter. You can tell me I'm full of shit, or that I suck, or that you hate me, or whatever, and that's fine (because you get to have thoughts too), and a privately-owned web forum can kick me out if my personal expressions don't meet the criteria for posting, but I will NEVER accept the notion that I simply don't get to have an opinion about something (yes, even YOUR sex life or YOUR beliefs, or YOUR anything at all). Even totalitarian governments cannot stop their citizens from THINKING something.

I have noticed that some people cannot distinguish between critique of their critique and telling them to shut up.

Are we allowed to comment without being accused of trying to shut someone up?

That is the irony here for me.

Criticism: "I think that some of the things presented in this book are problematic". Censorship: "This book is a vile piece of trash and it should be banned."