Doonsbury Banned!

[gustava]

I so wish I could see the world like Trudeau. He's brilliant.

[Sunnichick31]

It was seriously banned? Wow. Way to ignore the 1st amendment (freedom of the press/expression/however you want to phrase it)

[Artemis]

They banned it? Not true?

What's next, a fatwa? Copies burned in the town square? (No disrespect to you, Sunnichick, I was thinking of the Danish issue with the cartoons dissing Mohammed pbuh.)

Why was it banned?

[Guest Anonymous]

It wasn't banned. Some newspapers chose not to run it.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8653

[meow139]

oh, I just love this. it's true!

[Conuly]

It wasn't banned. Some newspapers chose not to run it.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8653

Which is their prerogative, cowardly as the choice generally was.

[marmalade]

It wasn't banned. Some newspapers chose not to run it.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8653

Follow the $$$$. Who owns most of the newspapers these days (and why have too many papers gone by the wayside)? Answer: Murdoch & his SuperPAC Pub friends.

[Guest Anonymous]

Which is their prerogative, cowardly as the choice generally was.

I agree on both counts - I just thought the OP was a bit misleading, and there wasn't an article linked to go with it. (And there was another thread.)

[gustava]

It wasn't banned. Some newspapers chose not to run it.

http://www.freejinger.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8653

Lissar--You are correct. I overstated, as is my wont. And I apologize that this issue has already been posted.

[Sunnichick31]

They banned it? Not true?

What's next, a fatwa? Copies burned in the town square? (No disrespect to you, Sunnichick, I was thinking of the Danish issue with the cartoons dissing Mohammed pbuh.)

Why was it banned?

No offense taken. It doesn't matter what group you're talking about, the first thing they do is publically denounce something, then comes burning, then re-education etc.