Originally Posted by cosmo20002
I don't want to get into a pateeu-type semantics debate, but "censorship" and raising "free speech" issues generally imply a govt suppression of speech, which obviously isn't the case here.
The Washington Post certainly has a right to "censor" its own content, and what happened here was people asking the WP not to publish what they think is false information.
If people telling a newspaper it shouldn't publish something false is suppressing free speech what is telling those people that they shouldn't make the request? Howard Kurtz, Fox, and Charles Krauthammer hate free speech!
It's not semantics when you get the definition wrong, it's just wrong. mlyonsd used "censorship" correctly in the thread title. Give the dictionary a try.
“[Cruz] might not be the most fun to have a drink at the bar with, but America needs a designated driver.” - Mica Mosbacher, wife of the late Robert Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce