This is not censorship. There must be another word for it, but not censorship.
I recall a story sometime ago about a ‘Rap Artist’ complaining that a radio station would not play his ‘music’ and stating that it was censorship. Niether, the ‘rapper’ or the Doctor is being censored.
Call it personal taste, political correctness, or in the case of the Doctor, ‘Dhimmitude’ on the part of the WaPo. But, it is not censorship.
UH, ACTUALLY, IT IS, INDEED, CENSORSHIP. WHEN YOU CHOOSE NOT TO RUN CERTAIN STATEMENTS/SILENCE THEM, IT’S CALLED . . . “CENSORSHIP.” THE WASHINGTON POST IS CENSORING OUT ALL STATEMENTS ABOUT JIHAD AND TERRORISM IN ITS CLASSIFIED ADS.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

zyzzyg on July 17, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I agree this is not censorship. True censoship implies an exercise of governmental authority.
However, this is an example of cowardness, PC and/or bias on the part of the Washington ComPost(credit to Mark Levin). The recourse for us is as Debbie suggests – boycott the WaPo and buy the book.
WRONG. THIS IS, INDEED, CENSORSHIP. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DICTIONARY WHICH DEFINES CENSORSHIP AS GOVERNMENT ACTION. CENSORSHIP CAN BE PRACTICED BY ANY PARTY.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

WillPower on July 17, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Whether it’s censorship, cowardice, or PC crap, the question is…. What is the Post afraid of?

Rich B on July 17, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Rich wrote “What is the Post afraid of?”
Muslims. We will protest, mostly by writing letters, and possibly economically. They will riot, burn, loot offices, blow things up, and cut off heads. That’s why we saw, at best, lukewarm support for the Danes during The Great Mohammed Cartoon Controversy.

jay on July 17, 2007 at 5:52 pm

I find the words ‘American’ and ‘medicine’ offensive content. Don’t you?

John Sobieski on July 18, 2007 at 12:56 am

I was wrong and you are right, Debbie, it is censorship.
Unfortunately, it is not illegal. It is clear that the media censors their news and advertising arbitrarily as a regular business practice.

WillPower on July 18, 2007 at 1:22 am

Related to this matter of Muslim physicians and jihad: my mother, old and frail, is currently hospitalized. She was assigned a physician with an Arabic surname. I informed the hospital staff that the physician’s name suggests that he or she is Muslim, and that I was distrustful of Muslim physicians and that I preferred that my mother be treated by a non-Muslim, citing what happened in Glasgow and in London recently, as well as instances in the USA where it was alleged that Muslim physicians deliberatedly ignored Jewish patients, one of whom died as a result. I explained that I was not accusing the physician assigned to treat my mother of antisemitism and intent to provide her with sub-par treatment, but that I was, with justification, distrustful and fearful of Muslim physicians based upon what other Muslim physicians had done. The hospital staff replied that I was showing prejudice. I replied that this was indeed the case, but my prejudice had a legitimate basis. I added that I would not absolutely forbid this physician to treat my mother but based upon current events, my knowledge of Islam and the attitudes it inculcates among True Believers, my concern is forgivable, and that I would be monitoring my mother’s treatment closely. An hour later, I discovered that my mother was assigned to another physician for unknown reasons. I am not sorry I did what I did, but I am a bit apprehensive about being sued by this physician. Parenthetically, I also explained to the staff with whom I spoke that the Muslim animus toward Jews and Christians can be found in the very first verse of the Koran, as the references to “those who have incurred the wrath of Allah” and “those who have gone astray” are traditionally construed to be Jews and Christians, respectively. So Allah is angry at the Jews, I explained, providing a religious basis for Muslim Jew hatred. As I said, I am apprehensive of a lawsuit, but I did nothing improper. The safety and well-being of my mother was my primary concern.

commonsense on July 18, 2007 at 7:56 am

Contrary to what “zyzzyg stardust” says, it IS censorship but, then again, what more would one expect from the “jihad daily urinal”, aka: Washington Polesmoker?

1shot1kill on July 18, 2007 at 8:04 am

It is not censorship, but if he plays his cards correctly he should be able to obtain plenty of free advertising from it. He may even end up with a best seller.

Burt on July 18, 2007 at 8:16 am

Yep, lawful censorship. A business can serve any constituancy any way it chooses, I guess. Regardless, it is yet another example of cowardice and fence-sitting. This literary rag, and others like it, are relentless in their desire to spew left-wing socialist dogma. But let a board certified professional with solid credentials and sound skills make a well-researched statement, or even advertise the existence of that statement…. and it will be censored DUE TO CONTENT!? I hope this publication dies sooner rather than later, we don’t need it as it does not serve the public interest.

FreeAmerican on July 18, 2007 at 8:18 am

Commonsense, you have every right to chose a non-muslim doctor for your mother.
Prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing as the PC crowd would like everyone to think. While it lasts, we still have the freedom to choose our friends, our acquaintances, and especially our doctors.
The fear of offending someone should never take precedence over what’s best for ourselves and our families. Bravo, you did the right thing.
If we don’t change this suicidal liberal mind set in our country, we will have no country.

Five on July 18, 2007 at 11:15 am

Commonsense: You had no reason to fear a lawsuit. You did the right thing. You don’t have to be so apologetic about it.
My father used to belong to Kaiser Permanente HMO (not any longer, thank G-d). They had veiled Muslim women with just their eyes showing manning the sign-in desk. He said he would not deal with anyone in disguise. They brought out a normal, appropriately dressed clerk to deal with him. No problem. My father is not PC and is not easily intimidated.

lexi on July 18, 2007 at 1:01 pm

LOL you guys are misinformed fools. It is very sad to see so many closeminded people writing about things they know nothing about.
“Prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing as the PC crowd would like everyone to think. While it lasts, we still have the freedom to choose our friends, our acquaintances, and especially our doctors.”
Prejudice is defined as an opinion formed without knowledge, thought, or reason. Why exactly would you defend that sort of opinion? And why would you think prejudice is a good thing because it allows you the freedom to be racist?
“Hey guys it’s good to have uninformed opinions that allows us to exclude others from our lives!” …what are you afraid of?
You guys are so sad : (

MonkeyM on July 18, 2007 at 1:15 pm