False equivalence. Let me paraphrase your argument a little bit: "If you suffer a sunburn, are you more or less injured than being run through with a katana?

False equivalence. Let me paraphrase your argument a little bit: "If you suffer a sunburn, are you more or less injured than being run through with a katana? No. [In both cases] you're still injured." But of course you can be more injured or less injured. The entire point is that injury isn't a binary measure, and neither is freedom/censorship. --- Let me put it another way... imagine the most oppressive possible regime, and then imagine the most liberal utopia but with one added restriction: you can't say "purple fuzzy dishwasher". That's the only restriction. Absolutely everything else is permitted but that one phrase is illegal, and immediately punishable by a million-dollar fine. Keep in mind that the most-oppressive regime also disallows the phrase "purple fuzzy dishwasher", and in their case it's punishable by torture and then death. If your definition of censorship doesn't meaningfully differentiate between the two societies, then it's completely useless. You could only use it to conclude that "all people are censored", since there are always possible material repercussions to things we could say.