Censorship is not a dirty word. It isn't always desirable, but it is sometimes necessary to prevent overly disturbing, painful, uncivilized or inappropriate thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness. Censorship claims are sometimes charged by readers when parts or all of what has been submitted or gleaned is killed.

It is a specious argument, full of holes. Censorship is a daily media occurrence, and journalists have always been self-censors. We determine what is appropriate or relevant in everything we write and publish. Censorship in the media is necessary, if for no other reason that the cannons of taste and appropriateness vary from community to community.

Clearly, there are some things that should seldom - hopefully never - materialize in black ink on white paper. Libel is No. 1, with or without malice. Libel is a published or broadcast false and defamatory statement, which damages the reputation of an individual. There is only one good defense in fighting a libel charge - truth.

But censorship is not about a person's "right" to have published whatever they desire in a newspaper or online. Freedom of speech is the right we all have to express ourselves in various forms - free of government restriction. The media, as it chooses, may restrict whatever it desires.

The Constitution and First Amendment are documents between the people and the government, addressing the general rights of freedom of assembly, press, religion, speech and petition of grievance. But there are no constitutional guarantees of a free speech right for Americans and their submissions to the the media, or freedom from censorship in the media.

Chris Satullo, editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, said: "Newspapers are one of the four or five institutions in a community that help the community define itself. We're part of the civic glue. We're the place where the community thinks out loud."

Thinking out loud generally extends to the dialog and public discourse with readers and citizens. The Bismarck Tribune has a fair amount of newspaper letter and op-ed writers who gladly attach their name to their thoughts and words. Those who make comments online have been allowed to do so anonymously. The Web, all would agree, is of ever-increasing importance to a newspaper's platform options of news, information and comment. While Web rules and norms are still evolving, they are much less restrictive and traditional than print on paper. That's good and bad.

The good comes from easy and immediate access. The bad usually is manifested in a lack of civility. When people are allowed to comment anonymously, some, for whatever reasons, go beyond sharing public discourse and opinion and feel compelled to launch personal attacks.

That will no longer be allowed in our Web site comments.

"Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting." That warning has long been posted online, and our pledge will continue. But a new posting will also appear that sets a higher standard for publication. "… comments must adhere to some basic principles of public conversation … comments will not be posted that contain potential libel and slander, personal insults and name calling or profanity. Posts must be issue-orientated and civil."

Those are the new rules. Write what you wish about issues, but adhere to those standards. Your opinion on issues will not be challenged, but personal character assassination of others will not be allowed. And please, don't argue or belabor the point in nasty e-mails to the online editors; they will not be baited into back-and-forth exchanges of censorship claims, freedom of speech breaches or what is good taste. Break the rules and your submission will be killed. End of story.

While many of those who comment are already civil, we hope others will continue to comment, but with more civility, maturity, responsibility and respect.

n New to review: Are you an economist, banker, business professor or just financially adept? Then maybe you'd be interested in reviewing "Are The Rich Necessary, Great Economic Arguments and How They Reflect Our Personal Value," by Hunter Lewis, Axios Press, 277 pages.

Are you a day-care provider, elementary school teacher or stay-at-home working mom with young kids? Then maybe you'd be interested in reviewing - with your children - the CD "This is Daniel Cook. Here We Are!" The CD contains 26 songs, including a mix of classics and originals of pop, classical, big band, country, polka, hip hop and Celtic sounds.

n Still available to review:

"Then Are the Children Free," Sylvia Klope Eller, Vantage Press. (Target audience: Pre-teens and teens.) "When Technology Fails, A Manual for Self-Reliance & Planetary Survival," Matthew Stein, Chelsea Green Publishing. (Target audience: Adults, parents, survivalists and the eco-minded.) "Fiona Finds the Son," Andrea Byers, Linda Roesch (illustrations), Flower Kingdom Fables and CMC Publishing. (Target audience: Children; story-illustration book).

If interested in any of these review opportunities, e-mail me at the address below.

(You can reach Editor John Irby at 250-8266 or john.irby@;bismarcktribune .com and go to http://www.bismarcktribune.com /blog/?w=thepaper&e_id=2671/ to read his blog.)