[andrewfong]

There are two ways to think of "web censorship":

The first is that web censorship (as opposed to just plain old regular censorship) requires filtering or interfering with the end-to-end principle. In this case, the U.S isn't really censored (although we had a close call with SOPA / PIPA). The DMCA and COPPA don't affect the end-to-end principle or block content -- they only threaten penalties on various people on the edges of the network.

The second way to think about this is to say that threatening penalties on people for what they say IS Internet Censorship. The question now isn't about "web censorship" per se, but really about whether said country has any restrictions on speech that can be applied to speech online. And if you take a very strict view of free speech rights, I'm pretty dubious you'll find any country that fits the bill (except perhaps some tiny nation with almost no laws to begin with).

Varying levels of "speech" you'd need to permit to be completely "censorship" free:

* Spammy advertisements

* Infringement of any and all IP rights

* Hate speech

* Threats

* Cyberbullying and other intentional inflictions of emotional distress

* Publication of private data

* (Re)-distribution of child porn

[mansr]

All of the things you mention can be illegal without imposing pre-publication censorship as has been the case with printed material for centuries.