What a shock it was that last weekend's column on Wal-Mart generated far more email than any other column all during the campaign, or even all year. And it was even more shocking that virtually all of the respondents were critical, disapproving, or outraged by what I wrote.
Anybody who doubts that culture, family, and moral values is a red-hot political issue should take on this one.
With a handful of exceptions, the email was overwhelmingly critical of my assertion that Wal-Mart was influencing culture in an unhealthy and censorious way, and should be boycotted. In fact, there was much more concern about Wal-Mart's freedom to stock whatever merchandise it wanted, in whatever form it wanted, than about the rights of singers, artists, or producers to make the music and movies they wanted.
"What about the right of a store to decide what merchandise it will carry?" messaged Ben. "While you may not agree with their policies, it's far from censorship."
"You ought to have your head examined," Larry wrote. "As a police officer, my job is hard enough as it is without gangster rap groups telling youths to kill cops...."
And from mtl: "....why don't you and your boycotters 'goose-step' in gestapo type fashion to boycott freedom. The freedom NOT to sell slime and garbage ... How 'bout that Mr. Marxist!"
Ironically, some of the most supportive posters were not the Web's famed libertarians, but gun-rights advocates, who felt Wal-Mart should not be pressuring artists to alter their work, or withdrawing guns and ammunition from their stores.
They were, however, critical of my contrasting Wal-Mart's refusal to sell uncensored music with its willingness to sell guns. On this score, they were right: The issues are not linked.
It seems gun owners are particularly sensitive to intrusions on their freedom, in this case more sensitive than the Net's free marketers. Last year, the Communications Decency Act had webheads in an uproar as Congress moved to make "indecent" language on the Internet a felony.
But when teenage kids, many rural, with nowhere else to shop, are forced to buy neutered music as a result of arrogant corporate intrusions into morality and creativity, there are mostly yawns.
Emailers praised Wal-Mart's low prices and expressed appreciation that the company had taken a stand on what it perceives as immoral culture.
It became clear over the weekend that many of the emails - many containing identical letters of support for Wal-Mart - reflected some sort of organization, dispatched from religious and other groups unhappy with the moral state of popular culture. Many of the messages accusing me of trying to censor Wal-Mart had virtually identical language.
Perhaps that contributed to the unprecedented volume, which had exceeded 2,000 by Sunday.
There was, however, one post that made the whole exercise worthwhile: "I am glad," emailed Rusty from Utah, "that people like you are standing up for people like me (I'm 15 years old) who have no voice in the world because people think that we are stupid."
Still, there was no question that the overwhelming response to the column was disagreement, or worse.
My response?
Like the outnumbered World War II general asked to surrender, I say, "Nuts."
Wal-Mart is censorious, greedy, hypocritical, and deceptive. And a lot of my digital correspondents just don't get it.
Wal-Mart isn't acting out of noble moral purpose, but is, like so many of our political leaders, seeking to exploit our fears about culture, media, morality, and children.
Wal-Mart is marketing itself as a commercial bulwark against filth and degeneracy. Don't buy it. Wal-Mart stopped selling handguns in a flash when victims of gunshot wounds and their families started suing them.
Of course, Wal-Mart has the right to stock whatever it chooses. I never said otherwise.
But in quietly forcing the alteration of recorded music to suit its own tastes, it has gone far beyond that. I have the right to shop elsewhere.
And artists and consumers both have the right to some protection from a culture in which Wal-Mart defines morality for everyone else.
To the many emailers, the deeply religious people and the gun collectors and users, and to those many others who wrote to me in concern about moral and religious values, our common ground is this: We should be free to make our own choices about morality. Wal-Mart isn't permitting us to do that. It's making them for us before they get to us. And cashing in on this hypocrisy and fake piety as well.
Wal-Mart is a powerful metaphor for the impact of economic censorship, often far more devastating to creativity and free speech than other kinds. Many webheads seem to see censorship as evil only if it comes from government. But corporations can censor information and culture much more pervasively than government, and it is just as troubling when they do, especially to people who presume to speak in freedom's name.
Wal-Mart is forcing changes in music and movies that government wouldn't dare attempt, that would be resisted with outrage and fury if it tried. In its campaign to clean up America, Wal-Mart goes beyond simply refusing to carry CDs with a "parental advisory" label. They carry the work of artists otherwise deemed offensive if jackets are changed and lyrics and songs altered and deleted by the record companies themselves.
Many emailers had no idea that Wal-Mart is so powerful - it sold more CDs than any other single entity, 52 million CDs out of the 615 million sold in the United States last year.
Many urban emailers, in the sometimes myopic tradition of the Net, also found it hard to conceive of a world - but it's the reality for an enormous chunk of the country - where Wal-Mart is the only music retailer for miles around. It's known for driving off smaller stores and competing chains.
Wal-Mart's actions don't signify freedom. They deprive people of freedom of choice. The chain then profits from the very same artists whose original work it deems offensive. It sells products in a deceptive way, permitting people to buy creative content that has been altered without telling them so.
It is changing the way movies and music are made in America. Does it have the right? Sure, if it can get away with it.
Do we have the right to shop elsewhere? You bet.
Please do.
