Bad Stimulus aka US Censorship

Anyone hear about this story?

Pentagon tries to buy entire print run of US spy expose Operation Dark Heart
US defence department attempts to prevent book by former intelligence officer Anthony Shaffer from reaching the shops

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...

US defence department attempts to prevent book by former intelligence officer Anthony Shaffer from reaching the shops. It’s every author’s dream – to write a book that’s so sensationally popular it’s impossible to find a copy in the shops, even as it keeps climbing up the bestseller lists.

And so it is for Anthony Shaffer, thanks to the Pentagon’s desire to buy up all 10,000 copies of the first printing of his new book, Operation Dark Heart. And then pulp them.

http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Dark...

Important Message for Customers
On Friday, August 13, 2010, just as St. Martin’s Press was readying its initial shipment of Operation Dark Heart, the Department of Defense expressed concern that its publication could cause damage to U.S. national security. The publication of the initial edition was canceled. However, after consulting with the author, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, St. Martin's Press agreed to incorporate some of the government’s changes, which includes redacting classified text, into a revised edition, which is releasing on September 24.

Surely all that buying an entire print run achieves is the guarantee of a second print run?

Jonman wrote:

Surely all that buying an entire print run achieves is the guarantee of a second print run and big sales for the author?

Fixed.

I believe the redacted second printing is due out any day now.

OK, this stinks all sorts of ways and I'm not going to defend the Pentagon. That said, if they wanted that information kept classified and it will be redacted in the second printing, this is a pretty creative way to stop a leak. I'm not sure I'd call it "censorship" in the usual sense because I don't know what the redacted information says (which would be the point). If it's just embarrassing then this is censorship. If it's a legitimate security concern, business as usual. I imagine it's a bit of each.

I think some embarrasing things, if they're really embarrasing enough (i.e. Abu Ghraib photographs), can generate far-reaching security implications.