TLDR: the decision of what a media outlet should publish belongs with that outlet and fear of violent reprisals is very far from being the only reason to not publish an item.
Thanks for the link. I was wondering how they rationalize this decision of censoring themselves, but it actually makes sense, especially this part - "Other publications can defend – and defend absolutely – the necessary diversity of press voices along with an editor’s right to offend. But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice."
You should replace the example of a neonazi journalist. It is a really bad one considering a lot of people consider wrongly Charlie Hebdo as a racist journal (one of the people killed was a corrector, Mustapha Ourad, and did not have the french nationality).
The cartoons are a very key part of this story. By censoring them, you're censoring a part of the news, which has nothing to do with the voice or stance of your newspaper.
The right to free speech also includes the right to not republish things you think are crap (or just not appropriate) …
That seems so obvious to me. Obviously, if it’s the fear of violent attacks that leads to that behaviour then that’s problematic, but that’s a separate discussion.
Maybe, but this is still what people call censorship [1], so the claim is arguably true.
[1] The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. (www.oxforddictionaries.com/)
Edit: (Trying to be more factual) NYDailyNews removed unacceptable parts, which is censorship according to [1]. I'm not claiming this was a good/bad decision.
Collectively shouting "I'm Spartacus" protects the collective and sends a strong message.