>>104356464Okay, let me expand.
Okay, sure, so far I talked about 'censorship' as understood as government censorship. But:
>>104356463>>104356448 - you guys are right, there IS a second meaning. I fucked up. Sure.
Here is the issue... censorship in the second meaning is NOT inherently bad?
The idea that, for example, ensuring that people won't run hardcore porn on public daytime TV channels is a GOOD thing, because no parent wants their children watching that shit. The same with swearwords, or... this case.
There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, in modern information landscape, it's pretty much necessary.
Publisher has right to decide what they want to publish, because they're a private company - are you saying that every customer has OBLIGATION to publish every book they're submitted? All comics publishers would be swamped by amateur stick-figure drivel and put out of work.
And if they do that in response to customer feedback, this is literally how 'invisible hand' in free market works. People complain, meaning demand is low - then supply should be lowered, too. There isn't enough demand to justify selling the book, the book is cancelled. Boom.
Could you describe it as 'censorship'? Technically, I guess. Is there anything wrong with that? ... Why would there be? Like I said, if Gantos/McKean WANT to publish their book, they have dozens of options to do that. Avatar Press, other indie publishers, or putting it online on their own site or Tapastic... IF they wanted to, which they clearly DON'T.
