In a recent editorial ("Somebody would prefer that you didn't read this," Oct. 2) you state, "Censorship -- of books or of blogs, it's the same ugly thing." I submit that it's also the "same ugly thing" to censor print letters to the editor regarding pending criminal cases because "reading will always be the key to gathering knowledge, assessing its value and making decisions" and your readers should be allowed the same privilege in regard to criminal cases when reading The Bee's letters that you advocate in your editorial.
The recent arrest of an Oakdale serviceman who responded to a cry for help and ended up being arrested for felony battery comes to mind when I consider whether The Bee's attempts to reduce its financial liability exposure by refusing to print letters about pending criminal cases isn't just the same kind of censorship exercised for personal reasons you decry in your editorial. You denounce censorship based on religious-social beliefs but practice censorship based on financial risk. Why is your form of censorship "good" while the other is "an ugly thing"?