Sometimes people who are angered by certain ideas
create pressure groups
who may either petition the editor to get rid of that author
or, if that fails, begin to contact advertisers
to tell them to withhold their advertising support
from a certain publication or other media outlet
unless a certain controversial person is silenced.

     If the means of communication is not supported by advertising,
such individuals or groups may try to turn off controversial opinions
by contacting whatever board or individual
might have the power to prevent any further such communication.
For example, if a minister of a church says something controversial,
offended listeners might write to the governing board of the church,
suggesting that the minister should be restrained or fired
for expressing such views.
Parishioners sometimes threaten
to withhold additional financial contributions
unless ideas contrary to their own views are not silenced.

     Editors, publishers, and church boards
usually have established ways to deal with critics
who want to silence a certain kind of opinion.
And if these safeguards of freedom of speech are known in advance,
such critics won't even try to silence the author.

     However, silence-the-author critics
can sometimes be changed into critics
who will engage in meaningful dialog with the author
—and possibly with other readers.
If the criticism had some substance beyond a tribal/partisan response,
then some rational discussion of the issues can take place.

     Flame-catchers or the governing board
could develop a form-letter response to send to
all people who want to silence a particular voice.
This letter would inform the critic of the policy
of protecting responsible, well-informed opinions.
And it would invite the critic to formulate a detailed critique
of the opinion that he or she found offensive or wrong.
Controversial ideas should be countered with other ideas.
The governing board will not silence a particular author
because he or she said or wrote something
that someone disagreed with.

     The most extreme form of the silence-the-author response
is the kill-the-author response.
When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses,
one of the Muslim leaders called for him to be killed
because he had committed blasphemy against Islam.
Rushdie himself survived.
But some publishers of the book in foreign languages were killed.
Eventually the leader who called for Rushdie to be killed as an infidel
himself died of natural causes
and the death-sentence against Rushdie was relaxed.

     This specific example also illustrates the tribal response.
The people who demonstrated in the streets of some Muslim cities
against Rushdie's book
had not read The Satanic Verses themselves.
They had merely been told by their religious leaders
that it was a blasphemous book
and that the author had been condemned to death.

     A less lethal example of the silence-the-author response
was Richard Nixon's infamous "enemies list".
President Nixon instructed his aids to create a list of people
who disagreed with any of his policies.
Not supporting the President
in some area where Nixon held strong beliefs
meant that the critic was an enemy.
And such enemies were not to be invited to the White House ever again.
After a while, it became a badge of honor to be on Nixon's enemies list.

     The very construction of such a list illustrates tribal thinking:
Politicians tend to be more tribal than the general public
because they often get elected by appealing to tribal loyalties.
Loyal members of the tribe must always follow the chief
—must always think the way the chief thinks.
In its most extreme form, dictators tell the people what to believe.
Dictators are certain their views are correct.
And people who dare to disagree publicly with dictators
often lose their lives.
In contrast, democratic leaders ask the people for their views.
And open-minded leaders are capable of learning from views
that differ from whatever position they originally espoused.