There is no difference if the consequence of failing to meet the demand is the demander not buying, or not doing business anymore. It is just stating the conditions for continued relationship ahead of time, and providing an alternative course of action. How harshly would the bank be judged if they simply dissociated and gave the blogger no option to adjust?
The fact that the blogger is continuing to blog as he sees fit counters any objectively verifiable assertion that censorship was involved.
I believe the term censorship is best left for those situation when a state agency (which one might be able to argue many large banks are anymore) demands changes or cessation of communication under pain (or threat) of fine, imprisonment, or death.
The fact that the blogger is continuing to blog as he sees fit counters any objectively verifiable assertion that censorship was involved.
I believe the term censorship is best left for those situation when a state agency (which one might be able to argue many large banks are anymore) demands changes or cessation of communication under pain (or threat) of fine, imprisonment, or death.