Could Declan or some libertarian explain this?

[Rich Graves <rcgraves@ix.netcom.com>]

>From the so-called fight-censorship list. I would ask there, but the list
owner won't let me, and I won't stoop to Vulis's level.

|        PLEASE MARK MY WORDS: IF MY BOOK IS NOT RE-PUBLISHED AND AVAILABLE
|IN BOOKSTORES, THE CAUSE OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE WEST WILL BE IN A SORRY
|STATE.  FEW ACADEMICS WOULD BE PREPARED TO SUFFER THE MANY BLOWS AND
|THREATS THAT I HAVE NOW ENDURED FOR SIX MONTHS. IF 'The 'g' Factor'
|DISAPPEARS, SO WILL OTHER SERIOUS PRODUCTS OF RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP --
|ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE DEEMED "CONTROVERSIAL" BY THE LIBERAL-LEFT. 

His complaint is that his publisher stopped distribution of his book arguing
that blacks are mentally inferior to whites.

Could someone please explain to me how Chris Brand is different from Vulis? 
I mean in form; in practice, Declan is bashing Vulis for not recognizing
rights of private editorial control, but uncritically passing on Mr. Brand's
message alleging that private editorial control is censorship. Far be it
from me to criticize Declan's right to exercise editorial control over
substantive dissent and factual correction, but I was just wondering. 

-rich