Replies

If you read her entire article, it is very, very apparent that Ann wrote this column with the grief over the death of a friend still tearing at her heart. If this is anyone's fault it is NRs for not editing or delaying the piece to allow her to calm down and focus. They allowed her pure "stream of consciousness", still dripping with agony, hurt and shock, to go out. And it was probably on purpose. In my opinion, they took advantage of her emotional nature to create an excuse to get rid of her.

If what you say is true, then why hasn't Ann apologized for or said that she regretted her remarks? Instead, she goes on national tv (on Bill Maher's show, of all outlets!) to diss National Review. I think Jonah did the right thing, and I am disappointed that Ann is claiming censorship -- as a Constitutional lawyer, she certainly knows what the real meaning of censorship is.

"as a Constitutional lawyer, she certainly knows what the real meaning of censorship is."

I take it from your suggestion that you know "what the real meaning of censorship is"?

I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time from your busy schedule to explain it to me.

BTW, please note that I did not ask for an explantion of what "government censorship" is; I already know what that means. I'm looking for a simple, direct, unambiguous explanaion of what you believe that "censorship" itself means, devoid of any government context.

Thanks in advance, etc.

If what you say is true, then why hasn't Ann apologized for or said that she regretted her remarks? Instead, she goes on national tv (on Bill Maher's show, of all outlets!) to diss National Review. I think Jonah did the right thing, and I am disappointed that Ann is claiming censorship -- as a Constitutional lawyer, she certainly knows what the real meaning of censorship is.

She feels betrayed and abandoned by people she trusted, and highly emotional people tend to go off like a roman candle when that happens...