Still musing on the topic.
Tadamsmar, I tentatively reject the idea that only governments can censor. I have taken a look at a number of defintions over the past day or two and the jury seems out on whether censorship has to be state imposed or run. A few of this defintions are found here:
I liked this defintion, and it speaks to my confusion. I use the broader term, while you may be (?) using the more narrow term:
"Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced...
--Academic American Encyclopedia"
I do think this discussion has the potential to get caught up in samantics. Whether or not caving to lobby group pressure is censorship or not is not so important as acknowledging that someone is trying to suppress information. If the press does suppress info then we have two guilty parties - those asking for info to be suppressed (the lobby group) and those who did as the lobby group demanded (the press).
Does anyone here think suppressing information to the adult public, in non-war type situations, is good?