Thanks for your reply, Laird. I fully agree with you on psychiatric patients. In fact, anti-psychiatry / post-psychiatry / critical psychiatry is one of my main areas of interest. With psychiatry, violence being employed by its institutionalised practitioners is the critical and defining issue. When, in my previous post, I have called censorship a form of violence, I have hesitated, doubting whether "violence" is too strong a word for describing it. Yet, I think, it is an appropriate to call it so, as long as one understands that the violence has many degrees and forms. And, while all of them is certainly not good, it would be a big mistake, both intellectually and morally, to simply lump them together undiscriminatively and portray them as equally evil. Badness of violence may differ from relatively moderate to the artociously severe. Trying to prevent people's access to the "fringe" positions in physical (e.g., not mental) medicine is wrong, and it should be called so, yet the common practice of coercive psychiatry is much, much worse. It is based on a literal, direct, brutal, physical violence towards people. And the aim of this violence is worse than physical - it is a cruel breaking of a person's mentality and personhood, accompanied by the procedures that damage person's brain, oftentimes irreversibly. And, in the case of the mainstream psychiatry, there are very strong reasons to validly criticise and reasonably doubt its intellectual underpinnings as well. The justification of the violence employed by psychiatrists is shaky and shady, being more an ideological mixture of political control, economic convenience and social segregation than a science in a strict sense. This I can state quite positively.