I think you're missing the point. It's not about whether, in this case, the censored message was true, or at least reasonable, or at least not completely terrib

I think you're missing the point. It's not about whether, in this case, the censored message was true, or at least reasonable, or at least not completely terrible. It's about saying that the government should not in any way be the arbiter of truth at all. It's not up to them to decide what is true, reasonable or crazy. "which aren't completely terrible" - Who decides which ideas are completely terrible and (implicitly in your comment) worthy of censorship, vs those which aren't and therefore okay to publish?