Information, dis-
It is not so much as censorship as discrediting the voices that have a clear and profound analysis of whatever our conflict has become, and the alternatives we have if we want to continue as a functioning society. When some people start using their public voices to advocate death for any particular group, that is when we have gone too far. Patrick Nielsen posts to that respect, saying Electrolite: Apocalypse now:
Obviously, the next time some backwoods militia moron calls for the murder of liberals, I'm entitled to advocate the killing of New York Post staff. Oh, wait. We don't need to postulate backwoods militia morons calling for the murder of folks like me. We have well-paid media stars on that beat.
And it is not about shouting matches and the very immature positioning of "you die", "no you first". The really dangerous and the very worrisome proposition, is that not only the government is interested in censorship (TIPS, anyone?) but a bunch of people would be acting as useful idiots, resorting to intimidation tactics and calling for isolation of dissenting voices. The dictatorial regime, but through a bunch of fronts that lead it the appearance of expressing the will of the people.Imagine what would happen if, say, the government had a very strong ascendancy over corporations and the media, and thus limiting with veiled threats not only what could reach the general public, but the tone of it.
Not that it is not happening already.