> "We are not in the business of rewriting the past, but we want to update the record" - stuff like this just oozes doublespeak.
Man, that word, "censorship," is really getting abused lately. It's almost like everyone's forgotten what it actually means, or can't be bothered to actually take the time to understand what they're using it to describe. As far as I can tell, the Boston Globe is not deleting anything (not that that would be censorship, either), just appending corrections/updates and maybe de-indexing some stories:
From the OP:
> What actions does this initiative involve? Will you delete stories? Will you remove names? What about Google?
> We have a number of options, including updating a story with new information and removing a story from search engine results. We consider every case on its own merits, and take the action appropriate based on the individual circumstances.
> Are you concerned about erasing history?
> We’re considering these on a case-by-case basis but we think the value of giving someone a fresh start often outweighs the historic value of keeping a story widely accessible long after an incident occurred. People’s lives aren’t static, they’re dynamic.
If this is censorship, so is the corrections page and new & updated editions of books.