[Restorer]

I'm with Lorianne. The 1st Amendment protects the right of the people who control the media to say whatever they want. If you want to join this elite group, you'll have to buy a media outlet.

Luckily, recent technological advances have made this a whole lot easier.

Start a blog. If it's good enough, you'll quickly get a lot of readers and links. If what you have to say isn't interesting enough, nobody will pay any attention.

[phenn]

Your advice is sound and, believe me, I understand how powerful the internet can be in the court of public opinion. However, I don't think that's where the author was going and it wasn't where I was going. Let me try to rephrase.

The author is not stating this is a 1st Amendment violation. She is stating that the act is an encroachment on her own freedom of speech - by the paper, not the government. And, I think it is within that spirit that her comments are meant to be read.

Again, I will cite that this particular publication invites submissions from their readers for republication. Picking out only those that reflect their opinions is almost a form of censorship and it's damn dishonest reporting at very least. The Times invites readers to voice their opinions, yes? So, why do they censor those they take acception to?

The reason this is offensive and wrong goes beyond (or around or under) the Amendment. The reference to the author's freedom is probably meant to be separate. This can easily be assessed as an intentional misrepresentation of public opinion and done for a specific reason or outcome dear to the editor/publisher.

That's censorship if, indeed, the paper/publication invites independent submission. Coming from a journalistic institution, that makes it wrong, biased, misleading, dishonest and - as the author pointed out - an offense to her personal freedom of speech.