Disagree. Such discussion are pointless with a simplistic (undefined) notion of good. When you define what "good" is, then you can have a real discussion about

Disagree. Such discussion are pointless with a simplistic (undefined) notion of good. When you define what "good" is, then you can have a real discussion about ethics. Once you define your value system (any inconsistencies? I hope not) then you can compute (probably with immense difficulty) whether something is good or bad within it. If you are a consequentialist then you would evaluate the effects of "censorship" in both cases. If you are not then you may also wish to evaluate "censorship" itself, or the government's enforcement of copyright (calling this censorship is rhetorical obfuscation, communication designed to confuse the listener.)