What gives you the right to be published? The Minneapolis Star Tribune can make their own editorial decisions. You appparently dont have a contract that states they have to carry you. If I owned a paper, I wouldnt carry Gary Trudeau's work. That would be my right. If you are going to push the borders of "good taste" as viewed by a significant percentage of that socialist state voters then dont be surprised when your work is no longer appreciated. I doubt they would keep an artist that showed babies dripping from the bloody mouth of GW Bush with some reference to Hitler either.
You have entirely missed the point... I have been forbidden TO SUBMIT MATERIAL to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I have no problem with not being published. Totally discretionary on the part of ANY paper. The problem here is that I have been forbidden to SUBMIT my editorial comments. And that, sir, is censorship and denial of Freedom of Speech. All this editor had to do was click "delete" on my email. Instead he chose to ban me permanent from submitting. Got it now?
You don't view too many political anti-Bush cartoons, do you?
Prairie
Funny, I don't see her using the word "right", or any reference to the 1st Amendment. Maybe I missed it. You do understand that censorship doesn't necessarily mean government censorship, right? She isn't saying her 1st Amendment rights were violated by government action. She's saying the paper censored her. They did. They are certainly allowed to do it, but that doesn't change what it is.
In re your naive or more likely disingenous argument that this large newspaper is probably even handed , and would alternatively not wish to distribute or even view a political cartoon which was harsh torwards Pres Bush. Dave your turnip truck doesn't even know that you fell off, better start walking.
While I pretty much agreed with the bulk of your post.....I wouldn't be too sure about that last sentence.
No right to be published but what about the right to e-mail the opinion editor or the paper? hmmm? They can print whatever they want, but I think it is a joke when they ask for opinions and then ban someone for not having the right one. If the e-mails were extremely abusive (hey a degree of abuse is deserved since they dish it out) that would be different.