If you think about it, the documentary would have gone viral either way - either parts of the documentary as video clips on social media, or the news about bann

If you think about it, the documentary would have gone viral either way - either parts of the documentary as video clips on social media, or the news about banning of it. Imagine if there was a documentary about Canada's PM - irrespective of the topic, it would have gone famous. So looks like the government chose the option which was less bad for them. > Even bad criticism should be tolerated in a democratic country It can lead to movements like the "birther" conspiracy where some people would refuse to change their minds after getting exposed to some information (also similar to anti-vax movement or people still thinking one of the famous dictator in the past being short when he was not actually short). Whether that is good or bad is a very complex topic, and most modern democracies want to let criticism flow through. Ironically, the censorship law used here were introduced by the opposition when they were in power. So this is a true case of "both sides" being complicit in censorship.