Media Matters campaign against Limbaugh isn't censorship

I agree that what media matters is doing isn't censorship, but I disagree that the "private v. public" distinction ends the discussion.  to be sure, the distiction is dispositive as a matter of  First Amendment law - but the question of whether something constitutes censorship doesn't end with whether it violates the First Amendment.  To begin with, many states recognize expression rights against private actors, such as when New Jersey's Supreme Court held that shopping malls can't stifle all forms of expression at their whim simply because their replacement of the trandtional public square happens to be privately owned.  And that ultimately illustrates the flaw in so much of libertarian thinking: its more concerned with whether something is "government" than whether something is truly a threat to liberty.  Private authority can be just as stifling and public authority, and while there are clear differences between the enforcement mechanisms, the lines have been blurring as of late.

Tom Mullen: The Right Has It Wrong on Media Matters' Campaign Against Limbaugh