As this news story explains, a number of newspapers had to agonize over whether or not to publish today's installment of Doonesbury.
Some papers (like this one) elected not to print the entire week of strips "because of the graphic, violent battlefield depictions of Iraq." Makes you wonder what they're publishing on their front pages.
Others (like this one) dropped only today's from the print edition but made it available on their website. This sounds to me more craven than not running the week of strips at all. Why is it appropriate for the website but not the newspaper? It's an old trick when you're afraid of outrage over something to make some meaningless gesture just so you can tell the protesters you did something about it.
The Duluth News Tribune took the occasion to move Doonesbury permanently from the comics page to the editorial page. That strikes me as a more intelligent way to deal with things…if you felt you had to do something.
The Green Bay News-Chronicle chose to "bleep" the expletive in today's strip. In the first article I linked to in this item, an editor is quoted as saying, "…we learned that we are contractually bound to print the strip as is, or not publish it at all." I thought that was s.o.p. for Doonesbury contracts. Does the News-Chronicle actually have a different deal? Or did they just violate it?
This article gives a good overview of the situation (and even quotes Mort "Beetle Bailey" Walker). And finally, if you haven't seen it, here's a link to today's Doonesbury…unexpurgated.