I think arguing against <i>all</i> censorship is doomed because people will always come up with examples that are very hard to argue with.   For example, "what if someone puts detailed plans to make a nuclear bomb on the internet"?   Would you really argue nothing should be done to prevent that?<p>What is really the problem here is the method.  We can usually all agree that censorship must be an exception, not the rule.   In fact, we can usually agree that in a democracy we have a set of important principles without which the pillars that support the democracy itself and the freedom of people within it will break down:<p>a) We try as hard not to censor as we can.<p>b) We try everything except censorship before we try censorship<p>c) Even then, we censor only when such censorship has a provable chance of preventing the serious harm that we have identified must be prevented<p>Filtering the internet fails all of these.