Gotta agree here, these look like minor edits without any agenda besides softening a few points. The claim of "censorship after 9/11" is completely unsupported by the following text.

Further, the explanatory narrative is hard to follow and further makes claims claims unsupported by the accompanying pics. For example, the cover "cancelled in the wake of the 11 September attacks because it featured carnage, including people being pulled out from under wrecked buildings, in New York City" seems to show nothing of the sort. (Those mesas ain't in northern NJ outside NYC, there's no building rubble or carnage or apparent survivors in that picture. Did this author put in the wrong picture, or is he imagining things?)

Aargh. It isn't censorship for DC Comics to edit the work of a writer or artist before publishing it. You'd think that the author of the piece, who mentions the Comics Code Authority and the history of comics censorship efforts in the '50, would understand the difference between a censor and an editor.

The comic wasn't censored, it was edited. If you don't know the difference, consult a dictionary.