Well, its not just in the EU or just in America. The concept of censorship is one that runs directly contrary to a democratic system, and any country which practices it can not hold itself to be a democratic one. In America, there is more self censorship going on, so the need rarely arises to smack down someone like this.
But I can think of two recent reports which the Bush administration has tried and/or succeded in killing. One is a report to the media on the human costs of the war in Iraq. This report was simply canceled. The other is the 9/11 report, which I think even the staunchest Bush supporter can agree is being drowned in red tape in hopes that it will never see the light of day.
I have a sincere question for all the Bushies on this board. I don't want an arguement, I really am genuinly interested.
The question is, why do you think its OK for Bush to try to censor and limit the 9/11 inquiry? By my logic, when Bush tries to prevent the 9/11 panel from doing its job, which is to find out exactly who knew what and when, then alarm bells start going off in my head. To me, its is totally obvious that is someone tries to censor a report, that means that that person will be implicated negatively in that report. What I want to know is how, given the same starting evidence (Bush trying to censor the report), you arrive at a different conclusion than mine.