would that be censored? how about if the facts underlying a case are seen to provoke something like racism - is it then legitimate to change the facts or censor them to the public.
"If the government or the law making process can be considered as an emanation of the citizen, it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration to some extent"
Unbelievable paradoxical statement: Starts with an If.. Ends with a vague to some extent.. and sticks the massive assumption of "it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration" - Why? Why is that legitimate?.
Perhaps in a democracy you might very carefully start to make such conclusions, but the Chinese people don't pick their government. There only chance of change is rebellion. Perhaps thats why news is suppressed?
Please, elaborate your statement - in laymans terms if possible, as I find the semantics in your statements quite difficult to follow.