I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand your reply. Did you read my comment as some sort of justification of either the Dahl estate's rewriting of Dahl's work or the state sponsored censorship in happening in Florida?

I read it as, "we're complaining about Democrats when we should really be complaining about Republicans." I apologize if that was unfair.

edit: even though you've made a careful distinction between "rewriting" and censorship here that a lot of people who support censorship make. I'm probably projecting this upon you, but it goes along with the diabolical "It's not censorship unless the government does it, and when the government does it, it's fighting hate and misinformation."

The burning of books is referenced in my username.

I think both things are bad.

One of the joys of being politically indie is that I can feel disgust at actions originating from across the political spectrum.

It read to me as if you think there isn’t sufficient standing to criticize these edits as long as another problem exists. The “I would also like to bring to your attention…” makes the denouncement in the previous sentence seem sarcastic. Replied in good faith to what I hope was an earnest question.

That was not my intention at all.

I thought clearly stating that I thought TFA was a messed up situation made that clear.

I think both things are not good.

I get it. I understand your meaning.

Yes, they are censorship by the rights owner of the author's work. Clearly and uncontroversially.

edit: also, a "rights owner" is what we call someone who has a government-granted monopoly on the right to publish a work. Granting or transferring exclusive publishing rights to entities that would be willing to censor a work would be a government end-run around prior restraint.

> Yes, they are censorship by the rights owner of the author's work.

Is that true when the rights owner (as is often the case) is the author? If it is not (or if it is but it is not problematic) in that case, why would it be if the rights owner is the author's heir, or an entity to whom the author or their heir has voluntarily, whether for value or other reasons, transferred the rights?

> also, a “rights owner” is what we call someone who has a government-granted monopoly on the right to publish a work.

Yes, under our copyright system that is, with very rare exceptions, the author, their heirs, or people to who such rights have been transferred by one or the other (and, in the case of transfers by authors, there is even a one-time take-back privilege with a specific time window.)

Self-censorship is arguably the most insidious and pernicious of all forms of speech suppression.