> No, but they'd need to pass laws and fight court battles to enable censorship versus merely taking over existing systems of censorship. I don't think that's

> No, but they'd need to pass laws and fight court battles to enable censorship versus merely taking over existing systems of censorship. I don't think that's a significant hurdle to any politician with popular support. Look at Trump, for example, not because I hate him (well I do, but that's not the point here), but because he is a good example of what a politician can do. He rammed into the freaking Supreme Court a candidate that was accused as rapist. And there was nothing the opposition could do. And the crazy thing is, Trump doesn't even enjoy unanimous support. Far from it. There's not much you can do once a politician is at power, has a semblance of popular support, and is willing to forego established political norms. Laws? They will change laws, they will take their matter to courts, and they will win. So I'm still not convinced it's a net positive to have an uncompromising legal roadblock against censorship, when the cost is to increase the chance that someone will rise to power and kick that roadblock away like a tin can.