I'm not sure whether to claim that it is not censorship or to argue that some censorship is acceptable. Clearly it is acceptable, and even mandatory, for a newspaper to stop reporters from editorializing in news stories. Similarly, there are some things that may not belong in the comic pages.

I recall periods when Doonesbury was moved to the editorial pages, which might be the best solution here.

The funny thing is that the censorship by many newspapers of this week's Doonesbury strips about abortion has just increased the on-line traffic and interest. And a good thing, too. Can't wait for the one about the law in Texas that makes rape by an ultrasound wand legal! It's just so sad that it's true.

Anonymous wrote:It is censorship but it is also the publisher's right.

Yes, and it's the right of a poster to dislike it.

If one of George Will's columns was pulled from several newspapers, it would be discussed and debated.

It is censorship but it is also the publisher's right.

Anonymous wrote:How is this censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

How is this censorship?

Gary Treadeau has a topic coming up about the new law in Texas making it mandatory for women to be shown fetus, fetal heartbeat, etc., and some newspapers are not going to run this. Trudeau, himself, has given them an alternative strip. Obviously, this is censorship and it makes me mad as hell and I do not understand why Trudeau is playing along with them. It isn't like this is his first controversial topic.