LeBron James was dunked on by a college kid in a college kids training camp. No big deal you might think, but James immediately went to the Nike representative there and asked that a film of the event be confiscated. First of all - how pathetic is that! Especially pathetic given his recent childish antics like not shaking hands after losing to Orlando in the conference finals, and the Ariza case. From a respected person he is turning himself more and more into a pathetic figure (and given my assumption that he won't win a championship in the next couple of years, I wonder what will happen there). He's a great basketball player (amazing even) but unless he goes to a shrink his image and even career might suffer. But there is actually a point to this story:

Is censorship of images useful? Did he hurt his case and would he have been better off letting the video be watched millions of times on youtube? (Even if the video will get to youtube they'll probably try to ban it). After the video would the words LeBron James and Dunk have been associated together as: LeBron James was dunked on?

I think there is a clear answer and that's that hiding images is almost always useful. Think of Abu-Ghraib without pictures, of Clinton affair without the stained dress - images are strong, and are getting stronger.
The people in Iran might be speaking to the west but without strong images the effect is weakened. We are so dependent on videos that without it the story might die today. Today it will still run, make the rounds, but tomorrow, it might just disappear. What's there really to say: he was dunked on? So what. People might mention the censorship, but not very often.
He's taking a hit, but perhaps a minor one, and at least in his strange mind, a lesser one from being seen dunked on by a college kid (Ha LeBron, you were dunked on; ha ha ha - that's what he's afraid of I guess.)

One always hopes that censorship will work against the censor, but if they succeed it usually works for them. If they succeed. If public outcry will force these videos out, he will have definitely lost from it.

Where does Nike fit in all this? Shouldn't the consumers objects to such blatant censorship (using the excuse that filming is not allowed, which didn't bother them until he was dunked on). Shouldn't we complain? I'm a Nike fan, and I buy mostly Nike. Should I next time think Puma? How do I as a customer force Nike against censorship?

I hope the film crew will take it to court, claim it as a newsworthy event. It should be interesting.
What do you think, do censoring images work, and if so, why doesn't everybody do it? How should we act against this censorship? Would you still wear a LeBron James TShirt?