Censorship

[Killtown]

[marky 54]

why are you censoring what the worse part of censorship is?

[KP50]

And the point of this thread is?

[marky 54]

its part of the spam campaign and tantrums because certain people have not got their own way, expect worse drivel than what has been posted recently for at least another two days or untill bans are the only alternative.

[chek]

[Killtown]

[chek]

[KP50]

[Killtown]

[Dogsmilk]

I think censorship is generally a bad thing.
It's not just about stopping people talking by banning things though. For example, the media often effectively censors certain issues by simply omitting any mention of them. This may be deeply structural - like the universal assumption that the political/economic system under which we live is the only option and any serious discussion of alternatives is unthinkable. Or you could say the entire range of questions about 911 is effectively censored as the media generally portrays the view there simply aren't any serious questions arising from the event and subsequent 911 commission. This may be a genuinely held belief, but requires elucidation of the reasons for this belief which involves having the discussion in the first place.
This also plays out on a minor level - for example if we refuse to discuss an issue we nevertheless promote, we are engaging in a form of censorship of debate at a personal level. An example of this might be touting ludicrous videos which make absurd claims as some kind of important analysis but refusing to respond to challenges regarding the pitiful content while still maintaining how important it is. Perhaps employing evasion strategies like saying the attackers are trolls. This serves to close down discussion of what is nevertheless being actively promoted and thus may be seen as a form of censorship arising from the urge to prevent false claims from receiving proper scrutiny. It is the censorship strategy of snake oil salesmen.
Attacks/mocking/ridiculing etc are potentially a bit problematic as they involve a high degree of subjectivity. Most people who are reasonably secure in their sense of self and their claims can cope with a certain amount of banter, sarcasm or challenge. Particularly when there is not an overt power differential. Some parties, however, may be unable to take criticism due to personal insecurity, being aware criticisms are valid but feeling unable to admit it, fear of losing status etc - the list of possibilities is long. So one person's legitimate cut and thrust of dispute is to another a profound threat or transgressing of boundaries. We all have lines we draw, but these differ according to individuals and may not correlate to the actual rules of the place in which they take place. For example, you might get one person on an internet forum who simply cannot cope with the kind of interactions everyone else manages to deal with just fine. This may lead to insufferable whining and spam attacks as the 'victim' desperately tries to convince themselves and others they are correct. Also, one can manipulate the situation as outlined above by using outrage as a means to effectively censor challenges.