Earlier this week, Gene Weingarten revealed in his chat's poll that the Post censored January 19th's Candorville which joked about presidential assassination and illegal immigration.
His poll revealed that 73% of his readers thought it was the wrong decision with the other 27% split almost evenly in half over 'correct' and 'not sure.'
I of course, think it was wrong, WRONG, WRONG!
Gene Weingarten: On the poll, this might surprise all of you, but I am not as sure as y'all are that The Post was wrong to pull that Candorville!
And I NEVER come down on that side.
This was a joke not only about assassination, but about the assination of a specific person. I would have had a serious taste question about that. I'm now second guessing myself a little, because so many of you did not.
and a later response that I agree with -
Washington, D.C.: The cartoon should have run because it expressed a sentiment that I think a lot of people are thinking/worried about but no one's saying it. I've only seen one interview with Obama that talked about security and even then it was very broad and he addressed it more broadly and they were off to the next question. I thought the illegal immigrant punchline was a perfect lampooning of where we're at as Americans right now.
Gene Weingarten: I'll buy that. Maybe.
and this one was way off base -
Candorville: The First Amendment and freedom of speech does not cover violence. The Post was right.
Gene Weingarten: Well, it wasn't ADVOCATING violence.
and a few more views -
London, UK : As an outsider you, as a country, can be a tad carefree with your presidents.
What Candorville seems to express is unspoken but not non-existant. The cartoon form is, and has always been, an ideal platform for such free speech.
Gene Weingarten: No one is questioning whether he is free to draw that strip. Of course he is. But newspapers do edit things for taste. It's not censorship, it's editing.
Candorville: I read the strip you mention in today's poll last week online, not knowing that it had been cut from the print version of the Post, and I was surprised at it for the same reasons you mention. However, I don't think it's dangerous, and I think it is an important social commentary on the fact that racism and intolerance are still serious problems in American society. For that reason, I think the Post should have run it.
Gene Weingarten: Okay.
Dogtown, Ark.: That Candorville was brilliant! Topical and poignant! What kind of maroon would think it offensive enough to pull from the comics page? Gene, it is your sacred duty to out this philistine so he/she may be duly ridiculed by the Chat.
Gene Weingarten: It was topical, though it was not a really original joke. It was a re-tooling of an old joke to fit a new topic.
and then -
Cambridge, Mass.: I would like to point out, as I'm sure many others already have, that the joke in the Candorville comic is a straight rip-off of a Dave Chapelle bit. Dave talks about how hard it would be to be the first black president and the likelihood of assassination, therefore he would only do it if his vice-president is Mexican, "for a little insurance. So everyone would just leave me and vice-president Santiago to our own devices." Great act by a native-D.C. comic.
Gene Weingarten: Dave was not the first to speculate on strategically having a terrible veep to make sure no one assassinates you. Those jokes were rampant during Dan Quayle's vice presidency.
Ok, after reading all the comments -- they were still wrong to drop it. It wasn't advocating assassination, so I think they just didn't want the outraged letters.