It will sting Eisner more if the movie makes a bunch of dough

I doubt it. I'll bet this was a very calculated move on Eisner's part, and while he might miss a lot of money because of it, there's probably a business case that says he'll still to better in the long run. Disney is very branded by their image, so something contraversial like Moore's movie has huge damage potential. My impression of Eisner (which is really limited so take this with a grain of salt) is that he probably doesn't care about the message at all and is merely doing what he thinks is best for the bottom line.

I'll bet this was a very calculated move on Eisner's part, and while he might miss a lot of money because of it, there's probably a business case that says he'll still to better in the long run. Disney is very branded by their image, so something contraversial like Moore's movie has huge damage potential.

Nah. It would be distributed by Miramax, which typically release films diametrically opposed to the typical Disney image of wholesome family films, though it's owned by Disney. Besides, Miramax has already distributed partisan political films, despite what Eisner says. I think this is less a calculated move on Eisner's part, and just one more in a string of stupid decisions by a CEO (is he still CEO?) that very, very few people in the company actually think should still be running the company.

All good points. I'm not saying Moore is correct in this case. I was just really responding to the potentially percieved notion that censorship is always illegal or can only be performed by governments.

Personally, I'd call it censorship if Disney told other distributors not to touch it. I think it requires either monopoly or (at least attempted) collusion. I don't think that's the case, though. It's just advertising.