He did absolutely no such thing. For someone to read his letter and come away with that conclusion has to either be smoking some crack, stupid or uses a seeing eye dog. You have completely misrepresented (a polite dime-store word for LIED) about his letter. I can only imagine how exaggerated your crocodile tears are.
Here are Mr. Pride's words:
Even though Marland's cartoon was copyrighted, it was on the Internet by midday Friday.
This is a clear accusation that his detractors had violated the copyright laws in republishing the cartoon for public debate. There is no reason to mention this unless Mr. Pride feels that his or Mr. Marland's copyright was violated. Accusation of copyright infringement is a serious charge for writers. The US Court System deals with copyright infringement on a daily basis -- it is not something to take lightly. Jim Robinson, owner of the Free Republic, is currently dealing with this accusation in the courts right now with the LA Times and the Washington Post.
For someone who had an opinion that mattered I would call them a totalitarian fool if they seriously advocated a prior restraint on all of Marland's future cartoons. Talk about being an ignorant, uninformed, head in the sand chicken little.
No one is advocating prior restraint on Mike Marland's cartoons as that would involve the US Government. Denying him access to the pages of the Concord Monitor is not censorship but a pure business decision. Mr. Marland will still be able to shop his work to other publications or even establish a web site of his own to publish and sell his art. Newspaper publishing is not only a literary activity but a financial one. The publisher has far more responsibilities than catering to its writers. They must meet the business needs of the publication which involves investors and advertisers. Publishing a newspaper that negatively effects those two groups is a sure fire way to terminate its publication.
I'm sorry that you can do nothing more that throw insults in matter. I can understand you having a different opinion in this matter but it has been completely lost in your nasty, hate filled comments. Step back and look at what you are writing and how that reflects back on you and your opinion. I am sure that the blind members of the Free Republic would take umbrage to your invalidation of their opinions because of their physical condition.
I am, however, at a loss to understand the seemingly snide and gratuitous personal attacks on the others who replying to you. Why, for example, must someone necessarily be LYING when talking about the editor? Thanks.