Just rename "The Anarchist's Cookbook" to "Patriotic Methods of Defending the Freedom of America" and you're all good.
Filthy sheep shit upon all things. Censorship is 100% bad in my view, no matter what. No matter what it is, no matter how dangerous or taboo, no matter how reviled or hated it is, no matter what politicians or religious nutters say about it, I really don't care.
Human society is transient and crumbles like a deck of cards every ten years. I certainly won't be wasting my time trying to please a herd of human animals.
Information is power, and censoring people, or preventing them access to information will make them weak, stupid, ignorant, and worst of all: Obedient.
I agree mostly with what you say and understand your undiluted passion at living in a censorship free world.
But I still think sometimes, such as in the interest of public order or other such extreme circumstances, it may be the right thing to do. Most people are easily swayed by authoritarian opinions thrust upon them and will follow the overriding consensus. This could possibly lead to societal turmoil if wrongly handled.
Remember, the media are the main culprits when it comes to feeding the masses what "they" want them to believe. Censorship will always exist to some degree and affect us all directly or indirectly.
I don't really think the "interest of the public order" matters though.
How could words change that, unless the words spoke of revolution or new ideas, that people in power wouldn't want said?
Public order isn't something you can touch. It's just the "forest for the trees" of living in a society where the most intelligent animals in the world want to live in houses with electricity, eat good food, and have a fine life.
Information isn't the enemy here. It's those who try to control information, people who exist beyond the realm of personal privacy, and can spy on your internet connection, see your finances, or coerce your children to attend their government run school.
That's how this society really is, and I don't think for a second that the power of censorship will do anything except cause the people who control what's censored to censor whatever they deem bad, or whatever scandal the media is raving about.
It's a fine idea hypothetically, but in practice? I think we all know about the people throughout history that were censored. Best to try to adapt for a world where things aren't censored, rather than trying to censor blockchains and other emerging technologies.
The governing authorities steer the public to adhere to guidelines that stop mass groups going on a chaotic rampage against the establishment. That comes under the law of the land.
Therefore, anarchy and a shaking up of the rule book is fine and dandy, but bringing back my post into context, when it comes to a piece of literature blatantly advocating violence perpetrated against society and endangering the innocent, it stands to reason to fully support the "censoring" of such materials, in an attempt to stop it falling into the wrong pair of hands.
Censorship per se is full of grey areas and divides opinion, as is seen here.