I was surprised to see this basic concept has not yet been addressed,but it is not “censorship” unless the GOVERNMENT is the censor.

In its classic form censorship was action by a government which completely blocked the transmission of information which the government did not wish to be revealed. This was possible in the day when the government could, and in those places where it did control the means of communication; either by physically controlling the means of communication, such as printing presses or tv and radio stations. It is still possible to physically control methods of mass communication to a significant degree in closed societies such as North Korea and in several Islamic states; also in totalitarian states such as the China and Vietnam.

But today most governments are unable to prevent communication, so for the last couple of centuries these states have concentrated on using the law to penalize the communication of prohibited information. Penalties can be civil (money judgments) or criminal (prison as well as forfeiture or fines). While technically not “censorship” in the sense that most modern communications can’t be blocked (Egypt, Libya, China, PRNK, et al. to the contrary), the courts have ruled that government action taken to penalize for previous communication is indeed a form of censorship. But of course some government censorship (pardon the redundancy) is permissible.

Your problem, JF, is actually a business issue. You have the right to publish your list: no one can stop you. But the Constitution which protects your right to express yourself under the First Amendment, doesn’t shield you from all consequences of the exercise of that right. Just because we may doesn’t mean there will be no cost. I understand why you feel extorted, but the instant you contracted with the advertisers you went into business. Your advertisers have the absolute right to choose who to advertise with. They decided they didn’t want their products or services associated with a site which carried a list that some would argue might conceivably encourage suicide. They didn’t “make” you pull your suicide list: you could have kept up for as long as you want. But you made a business decision based on market forces and conditions, and came to the conclusion you’d rather have the advertisers’ business. That’s a perfectly legitimate, rational, responsible decision, and you have nothing to be ashamed of. But neither do your advertisers. So let’s kinda lighten up on the martyr-to-free-speech angle.

*You actually are talking about “extortion”, which is a broader category than blackmail, and is the compelling of specific behavior of the victim by means of threatening damaging or unpleasant consequences should the victim fail to comply. “Blackmail” is a specific kind of extortion, in which the blackmailer usually threatens to reveal information damaging to the life, freedom, relationships or reputation of the victim unless the victim gives something of value to the blackmailer,which classically is money, but could be the commission or omission of certain acts by the victim.