Sorry I do not get the analogy with the right shutting down CNN or MSNBC.

The man in red who reads the Law
Gave him three weeks of life,
Three little weeks in which to heal
His soul of his soul's strife,
And cleanse from every blot of blood
The hand that held the knife.

And with tears of blood he cleansed the hand,
The hand that held the steel:
For only blood can wipe out blood,
And only tears can heal:
And the crimson stain that was of Cain
Became Christ's snow-white seal.

link

Yes those that live on (all men) have pain to bear, and Wilde muses that a broken heart is the only path to healing and pardon. All men bear the mark of Cain in his analogy.

Imus and the money machine of pop media have no true remorse or reflective abitity. Both are powered by greed alone. Yes, MSNBC dropped Imus,  for fear of their bottom line. Nothing moral, poetic or reflective, pure buisness.

Now, you've made it prety clear to me that the real rift here is that we just have differing definitions of censorship.  That I guess shouldn't surprise me.  We have different definitions of a lot of things, no?  National security, government accountability, etc.

"Censorship" for me has always triggered the question of legality.  Someone telling you STFU, for example, is a loss of temper and a downgrade of class but it is not censoring them, because after all you can ignore them and keep talking.  

It also seems like you see a network firing as a form of censorship.  As well as a boycott of corporate sponsirs on radio shows.  You ask, would I object to the Right seeking to shut down CNN?  Well, they have every right to send letters to all the sponsors swearing never to spend money on them.  I wouldn't exactly call that censorship either.

Finally, above you wrote that Limbaugh et all have a right to the airwaves.  Now, while I can more or less agree to disagree on specifically defining censorhip, that argument there is just plain loony.  Limbaugh is on the air not because he has a right to it.  It's not like the right to vote or to privacy.  

No.  It bothers me to admit it, but the truth is Limbaugh earned his audience, and he draws advertisers, and so he gets the privilege of being on the airwaves, the same privilege Imus had.  Limbaugh markets a service, people buy it.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to buy it, or even boycotting the advertisers that finance it. Indeed, there needs to be more awareness on all of our parts what our money is actually doing.

BTW: You once said you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Check him out sometime.  You'll find that he pulls all kinds of nasty rhetorical stunts over the course of a week.  Smearing, denigrating, generalizing: the man is much more nasty than Don Imus, I can promise you.