A private corporation restricting access to information isn't censorship. If it were an article that the government put behind a paywall, you might be able to construe it as such, but even then it seems silly since there's still no limit on the expression itself.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the WSJ blocking access was censorship - I know they're fully within their rights, etc., etc. I just thought it was amusing.
"A private corporation restricting access to information isn't censorship."
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a
government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
(And Wikipedia is hardly approaching authoritative. I'd suggest something like the OED, but given that it's another subscription service [for the online form], I guess it would fall under one of those skewed interpretations of censorship, too.)
Now if North Korea could only arrange to become one large company with its citizens relabeled employees, its laws relabeled "conditions of employment", and their prisons as "homeless camps" then no one could object.
Those who are fired are welcome to go "anywhere in the country not owned by KimCo" - IE to any of ten detention areas.
Yes, I think I've found the path to Freedom for the 'Democratic' North Koreans...
