Boy, that word gets tossed around an awful lot. Most recently, at least for me, it comes from the Forest Ethics folks.
Twenty-six major publications including Rolling Stone, Time, Entertainment Weekly, refused to run an advertisement critical of Victoria's Secret for its role in destroying Endangered Forests. Many publications refused to identify the reason, but those that did respond revealed an unwillingness to offend major corporate advertiser. The ad had been accepted and run by The New York Times and other publications.
"We know we're not dealing with issues of acceptability here. We're dealing with censorship...It raises a very disturbing question: If these supposedly objective publications are willing to censor an environmental group out of deference to an advertiser, how much can we really trust the rest of their content?", said Todd Paglia of ForestEthics.
There's nothing disturbing about it. To be published in any of those magazines is not a right that you have. It's their choice to make, just like I could choose to stop buying those magazines over it. Simply put, it's not censorship because they're not preventing you from getting your message out there, they're just refusing to serve as your podium. There's a huge difference there, Todd; you're still allowed to say what you want.
People who cry censorship whenever they're faced with disagreement dilute the impact of the word for people who truly feel its effects. Settle down, stop complaining and work on Plan B.