whenever some movie got 'not disseminated' in ex-communist countries before they became 'ex-', Western media and governments called that 'censorship', I think appropriately.

The difference being that in the communist countries it was the government suppressing movies as a means of controlling thoughts and ideas, not a company trying to make a good business decision. Now if Jebb really abused his powers to coerce Disney's decision then I'd agree that this is censorship, however Disney should be allowed to distribute whatever it does or does not want to. And Moore's movie is not being suppressed by Disney anyway. He's free to take it somewhere else and find someone who will distribute it. If it were true suppression then Disney would be actively making sure no one else promotes it either.

Now I'm not a big fan of Eisner, so I really don't know what the truth is behind his motives and actions. Some of the actions taken seem inconsistent to me, so I'm not really trying to defend him here. However, when Disney puts out a movie that offends people, that reflects on the company. For the most part it is not in the best interested of the company to offend people, especially when so much of their content is aimed at a conservative base. So it does make a great deal of business sense that Eisner wouldn't want Disney's name attached to Moore's project. Once again, I don't think that's suppression, it's making a business decision- a business decision that Eisner is free to make because he lives and does business in a country where people are free to make their own choices.

But see, there are other movie companies that don't have the same issues as Disney. They might be very pleased to disseminate Moore's movie because they aren't as worried about alienating their customers- in fact Moore’s movies are probably well received by some significant consumer segments out there, and for those business that have those types of customers this movie would probably be a great asset. It's all about free-trade, business decisions, and consumer expectations: choices Americans are free to make because the law protects our right to choose.

So once again I think the use of the word "Censorship" is out of line for what is merely a free business decision, conspiracy theories notwithstanding. As far as the allegations Moore makes of Disney’s inconsistent behavior, I wouldn't put it past Eisner to have behaved badly, but that's a different issue than censorship.

All that being said, I can empathize with Moore in that I’d hate to be told something I worked hard to produce isn’t going to be distributed. Even if he can find another company, it still must sting to have Disney back out.