The New York Times is no friend of any speech except its own. Despite its complaint about "authoritarianism," it supported the government's right to censor ads by Wisconsin Right to Life under McCain Feingold. Why it's more upset about a private company engaging in censorship, I can't fathom. I don't like what Verizon did either, and am glad it reversed its policy, but the Times editorial was sheer hypocrisy.

It is also noteworthy that Verizon was not discriminating against the pro-choice side as many have insinuated. It was simply trying to keep what it considered the "unsavory" topic of abortion off its network, much like a supermarket bulletin board might tear down such messages for fear of offending customers. Again, I don't think it was justified in the context of text messaging -- but note that Planned Parenthood itself found the word "abortion" so unsavory that it omitted that term from the press release defending its opening of the Aurora clinic.