[Stone Mountain]

They demand censorship of her. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I decided simply to not listen to their music or purchase their albums or listen to the stations that played their music. That is my response to their objectionable comments on foreign soil. I did not decry their right to continue singing nor did I want them banned from the airwaves.

You personally may not have, but a whole bunch of people here did. Clear Channel eventually decided to quit playing them because of the number of complaints they received. That's not censorship. If the government took her off the air, that would be censorship. Giving your readers/listeners what they want is merely good business practice.

But they don't want that, they want all newspapers to stop carrying her column. That is what I have a problem with.

That may be a philosophical difference you have with people who would take the time to ask their newspapers not to carry columns they don't like. But once again, it's not censorship. Consumers have a right to complain about products they buy. Media owners can decide whether or not they want to listen and heed those complaints. As long as the government isn't involved, it's not censorship.

[Sam Hill]

"You personally may not have, but a whole bunch of people here did. Clear Channel eventually decided to quit playing them because of the number of complaints they received. That's not censorship. If the government took her off the air, that would be censorship. Giving your readers/listeners what they want is merely good business practice."

Your ignorance on this issue is unbounded.

Again it is a childish myth that only governments can censor.

Churches censor. Newspapers censor. Film commissions censor.

People censor themselves all the time. Which is probably a good thing, or I would say something about your resorting to idiotic arguments to try to destroy someone that might get me banned.

And, yes, even Free Republic censors.

Sheesh.