Rejection is not the same as censorship

If I may reply to Mr Merriman and the rest of the anti-censorship squad lying in wait: It is not censorship when an editor rejects a column for lack of substance, which is all I was asking for (vitriol aside). It’s a paper’s duty to its readers to provide informed, reasoned opinion on divisive topics. But Khun Pavin’s column doesn’t meet that difficult standard; a “bull***t” stamp would get his attention. Read it and look at the meat-to-fat ratio, or dirty water to drinkable water (look specifically for blind assumptions and naked biases; heat without illumination). Then ask yourself how much you learned from it that is of any use in the discussion.

I used to teach freshman composition (no stamp then, they were just kids), and his column would have failed – not for his opinions but for their emptiness and one-sidedness, and especially for his poor understanding of his topic, which in the end is humanity. As bad as censorship is, empty, bloated opinions (even empty “nice, positive” ones) can do as much damage to society, and to our brain cells. So worthless writing should simply be rejected, and the writer is free to try again. Making judgements on quality is not censorship. It’s the process of growth as a writer and thinker.

J Dall

Bangkok