Arguments around free speech tend to go something like this.
Pro-Free Speech: All views should be heard, and the poisonous views will be seen for what they are and dismissed.
Pro censorship: If you give harmful poisonous views the oxygen of publicity they will poison the discourse.
However, I'd like to point out another effect of partial censorship. The ability to change the story being told. I like to call this manipulative censorship.
This morning the Herald ran the story "Is Northern Ireland success really good for Scottish buffer zones?" along with the following picture.
The woman on the right in the green top is my friend Beth, without any more information what would you think Beth's position on abortion is? (answer after the page break).
Beth and I spent a lot of the summer going around pride events collecting submissions for Gillian MacKay's buffer zone bill. As well as organising a protest in Edinburgh in at the SCOTUS decision to reverse Row Vs Wade.
The original picture looks like this
Obviously, the newspaper can't print a sign with the word "CUNTS" on it and I'm not accusing Catriona Stewart of deliberately misrepresentation Beth's position. But it's clear that censorship can lead to a misrepresentation of the facts.