[Pyramus]

Yes and no. Words do matter. Censorship usually (also) refers to restrictions of free speech typical for non-democratic societies [1], which doesn't lead to productive discussions (in my experience). It is not uncommon to see the false conclusion "censorship is used in authoritarian countries therefore free speech must not be restricted".

> a restriction of speech that you agree with

It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree. It matters whether we, as a society, can find a balance between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the sovereign/state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[bondarchuk]

>It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree. It matters whether we, as a society, can find a balance between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the sovereign/state.

Yes. And this is called... censorship. Even when we, the good guys, do it. You can't just change the definition of words based on whether a western democracy or an authoritarian hellhole does it, when they're doing exactly the same thing.

Edit:

> Censorship usually (also) refers to restrictions of free speech typical for non-democratic societies [1], which doesn't lead to productive discussions (in my experience). It is not uncommon to see the false conclusion "censorship is used in authoritarian countries therefore free speech must not be restricted".

If people make a faulty argument, point out the fault in the argument. No need to change the definition of words so the ground shifts under their feet. FWIW, I think "censorship is a prime feature of authoritarian governments" is a perfectly valid argument against, ahem, restricting free speech.

[Pyramus]

Not sure where I changed the definition of censorship - I was saying that using the word censorship can easily lead to false equivalences, such as

> they're doing exactly the same thing.

No, they aren't, baseline and context matters. You are falsely equating the removal of say, anti-vax conspiracy content in the US, with the removal of say, political/homosexual/religious/ethnic content in an authoritarian regime. If you don't believe me, ask somebody who was forced to flee their country due to any of the above reasons.

> point out the fault in the argument.

Let's assume 'censorship' == any restriction to free speech. We already agreed that every Western democracy has such restrictions or 'censorship'. How can "authoritarian regimes use 'censorship'" now be an argument against 'censorship'?

To paraphrase (not a perfect analogy), murderers use knives, and chefs use knives, but "murderers use knives" is not valid argument against knives?

I understand if you disagree with already existing restrictions of free speech in Western democracies, is that what you mean?

[bondarchuk]

I'm not passing a value judgment on how western democracies restrict speech, I'm just saying that if they restrict speech, then they are doing censorship. Indeed they are doing the same thing, qualitatively, as more authoritarian countries, but on different subjects and with different intensities. If it makes you uncomfortable to call it what it is, perhaps you'd do well to investigate why that is.