Scott Adams, the creator of the comic strip Dilbert, has created a firestorm of criticism and in so doing, boxed himself into a certain financial hit when he made the blanket referral to blacks as a “hate group” and suggested that whites “stay the hell away” from African Americans.
The outrage was justified and the reaction was swift as newspapers DROPPED THE POPULAR STRIP. Among those canceling Dilbert were the Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the USA Today network of newspapers.
Adams’ comments were reprehensible and certainly not representative of what a free society should be about.
But while I do not agree for a nano-second with what he said, I have to say I believe the media’s dropping his strip was also not what this country should be about. And to feel and say otherwise would be inconsistent with the position I staked out long ago.
I’ve been writing for weeks now about the insane, neo-fascist efforts to censor books in the state’s public and school libraries. My opposition is anchored in the belief that the First Amendment guarantees, among other things, freedom of the press sans censorship. Period. That freedom is sacrosanct.
That belief is in no way indicative to what I would choose to read. If it’s objectionable to me, I simply don’t read it. If it’s inappropriate, I don’t purchase it or check it out. Period.
Along with that freedom of the press is the guaranteed right, as an American, to read whatever I choose to read, be it a book by Sean Hannity or Karl Marx. Just so you know, I would not read either on a bet, but I demand – and have – the right to do so.
It was 50 years ago, when I wrote for the Baton Rouge State-Times, that our sister paper, the Morning Advocate, relegated Doonesbury to the editorial page because of its political content. Other papers just flat-out refused to carry the strip, despite its brilliant topical observations and Garry Trudeau’s unique ability to inject biting humor into the political landscape in a manner evocative of Mark Twain or Will Rogers.
Today, a true artist named Darrin Bell has an equally observant and funny strip called Candorville that features black characters. To date, far too few newspapers carry this outstanding strip. I fear that in today’s atmosphere of censorship and rewrites of classic books and watering down of history and civics classes, some indignant, self-appointed literature cop is going to take a swipe at Candorville and Bell will be forced to publish some bland, vanilla version of Candorville or find another line of work.
In case you haven’t noticed, a lot of talented editorial cartoonists have retired rather than face the constant scrutiny of editors fearful of antagonizing the wrong political power brokers.
The solution to Adams’ racist tirade is, if it offends you, just don’t read his strip. But to put a muzzle on him just because we don’t agree with him does not measure up to the standards of our Constitution.
There should always be freedom to hold open dialogue on any subject without fear of censorship.
Louisiana Voice 
“I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall in Voltaire biography
I disagree cancelling the Dilbert strip is tantamount to censorship. Newspapers are free to “not read the strip” just like individuals are. Newspapers are under no obligation to provide Adams a platform, and thus by removing it are censoring him. Adams provides a product that is no longer appealing to many consumers. Newspapers are free to move on to other products with more appeal to their consumers. Censorship is when one is prevented from expressing oneself. No one is preventing Adams from expressing himself, or doubling down on it. It’s just that no one is interested in the ignorant things Adams has to say. He’s not being censored. He’s being ignored. And rightfully so. When all the “Republican” ilk whines about being censored or cancelled it’s the same thing. They’re not being censored. They’re being ignored because no one is under any obligation to pay any attention to the stupid things they have to say.
As a further example libraries could not possibly have a physical copy of every book ever pubished. Choosing to have this physical copy over that physical copy is not censorship if the decision is made based on an objective standard and for reasons of cost or space. But it does become censorship if the reason is to prevent patrons from accessing the book. No one is preventing you from accessing the “Dilbert” strip from some other source, or preventing Adams from creating it. Granted, such things can become a slippery slope. But I always return to this: I am under no obligation to take seriously any stupid thing someone may say to me and when I turn my back and walk away I am not “censoring/cancelling” that person. I’m ignoring them because they’re an idiot.
Gotta disagree with you on this one Tom. No one is censoring him or his strip. He is still free to say whatever to whomever but we don’t have to listen. The newspapers are just exercising their right not to do further business with this individual. He chose to say what he did and now, if he wants, he can still choose to self publish and distribute his work. Where is the censorship in that? Isn’t that what you do?
So you don’t feel that newspapers continuing to publish the strip are condoning his racist comments? I was in agreement with you at first, but when I heard the rest of his remarks I am not so sure. It seems to me HE made the choice to forfeit his income to project his opinions. I have really mixed feelings about the whole cancel culture thing. It is an unpleasant by-product of our social media connected universe that we are monitored for the opinions we express. But anyone who makes a living in front of the public and in the public eye should know to muzzle themselves if they don’t want to be impacted. I understand how difficult it is as an editorial cartoonist, but they are by definition political and opinionated. I don’t like most of the sentiments expressed in Mallard Fillmore, but it doesn’t bother me to see it, or the cartoons on the editorial page that are counter to my views. I appreciate that the paper tries to present both sides, even though I really dislike some of the partisan columnists. This just seems a bit different.
Agree with Mr. Spillman. My daily review of events often upsets me, but I enjoy the great writing/performances and can respond or get back to my work. I can attend social events and can’t hear much, and I have adjusted my comments from shut the f up to just be quiet. Others, I just walk away. The comments by retired military/DOD civilians, reinforce my education so we must Keep Learning and Keep Loving. thanks ron thompson