> No censorship shall be maintained
How does that square with Japanese censorship of pornography?
How does that square with Japanese censorship of pornography?
what decides which way their motivation swings, legally?
perhaps they, and others, shouldn't consider the lines between censored topics to be so vividly painted as 'indecent' or 'not'.
it's an issue that some of the most important law-shaping courts in the world have argued back and fourth about for years; the criteria for concluding what is or isn't indecent.
Then they can always find another way to make the same point.
>what decides which way their motivation swings, legally?
Society, courts, etc.
>it's an issue that some of the most important law-shaping courts in the world have argued back and fourth about for years; the criteria for concluding what is or isn't indecent.
Yes.
Making a political statement in certain way is itself a statement.
"But advocating it is still legal" would be no more valid an excuse than making displaying or depicting police misconduct illegal but nominally allowing advocacy against police misconduct. The point of censorship is enforced ignorance to maintain control.