The reaction is, I think, to the general form of this argument: > Argument: This is X - not really, X defined legally (..) Which is in itself an often occur

The reaction is, I think, to the general form of this argument: > Argument: This is X - not really, X defined legally (..) Which is in itself an often occurring argument which (in my opinion) isn't extremely useful. You are transposing the legal definition of censorship into this argument. This is perfectly alright, except most people who make the argument "this is censorship" aren't referring to the legal definition of censorship. So your counterpoint is moot. I'm not trying to say that those people are right necessarily, just that arguing against these points requires other arguments than this one. (edited for clarity)