You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
Which statement more accurately describes it:
A: The newspaper ignored the puppy story.
B: The newspaper avoided the puppy story.
Which statement more accurately describes it:
A: The newspaper ignored the puppy story.
B: The newspaper avoided the puppy story.
I'm asking you that exact same question.
I'm trying to figure out YOUR STANDARD FOR "CENSORSHIP AS CONSEQUENCE".
The newspaper could claim, "well, that person complaining about the puppy-slaughter didn't seem credible to me, and even though one of our rookie reporters is sketching up a puppy-slaughter story, we already have this new ice-cream parlor story all lined up for the front page, so I didn't think there's any good reason to scrap that and start from scratch (re-mockup the front page), besides people find puppy-slaughter depressing and I don't think our readership would really appreciate that kind of thing, even if it might be true, which it probably isn't, I mean, who would kill a puppy? Have you ever seen one? Oh, my gosh, they're absolutely adorable!!!"
Does that answer your question?
Would you consider that definitely censorship (OR) would you consider that definitely NOT censorship?
Even if they avoid publishing it, they are free to chose what they publish, and not publishing something is not any case for Censorship. The person is free to publish the story themselves, they are free to go elsewhere to publish, and if others refuse them won't make it censorship, even if every single publisher in the universe refuses to do so.