It's one of the consequences of democracy. If the majority decides something is offensive, it is in the best interest of politicians to censor it. Thankfully as time goes by, people seem less and less in favor of censorship.
The other kind of censorship, being the executive branch calling every single action they do a matter of national security... that is a symptom of people making poor choices in who to elect as chief executive
The most insidous form of censorship is called Political Correctness.
In the name of PC, society is divided into 2 groups:
1. Those protected by PC
2. Everyone else for whom PC paints a bullseye on their back.
If you are Jesse Kackson or Al Sharpton you can say anything you damn well please and never be questioned. If you are Don Imus, you have a bullseye on your back and have to walk on eggshells every time you open your mouth.
If you are homosexual, you are protected and not censored. If you are straight, you are not protected and must censor your speech and actions.
If you are Hispanic from Cuba you are subject to censorship. If you are Hispanic from Mexico or Puerto Rico, you are not subject to censorship.
If you are Christian, you are subject to censorship. If you are atheist or Muslim, you are not subject to censorship.
I invite anyone of like mind to join me in saying "Hell NO" to any and all aspects of PC.
You're analysis seems to ignore that PC is not government mandated. Most PC "enforcement" is corporate self-censorship. It seems being insulting and nasty toward other people is bad for productivity.
What is most humorous is how the concept PC in right-wing lingo has grown from a social disdain for racist, sexist, and other ethnically nasty talk... to anything that liberals are normally against in speech.
Universities and corporations have rules against the derogatory language and nasty behavior that decrease productivity in both work and the sclassroom... and have no real academic or work-related purpose. Honestly... when has the need to call a black guy by some derogatory name, avow your hatred for gays, or call a girl a ***** ever been relevant to anything in classroom or work? Never. It's only disruptive.
You are however under no legal obligation to be PC in things you do for entertainment, when sending letters to a politician, or anything else for that matter in which you are not participating in a corporation or classroom.
The only thing that stops you is the disdain you will receive from others, up to and including the use of their own resources to bar you from media and disassociate from you.
There is no constitutional protection from the way people react to your speech.
I'm not entirely sure why anyone feels it is necessary to be rude, racist, mean, or whatever... and how it is they expect it to help their cause...
but no one is actually stopping you.
You can run out into the street and ramble on about Jews and blacks and women and whatever...
Just don't expect it's going to make people want to give you a job or be around you.
You're analysis seems to ignore that PC is not government mandated. Most PC "enforcement" is corporate self-censorship.
What planet are you from? PC may not be written in law but it is the enforced standrad for all government transactions.
Did you know that an appraiser can't describe a house as having "a master bedroom with a walk-in closet". (I guess it is offensive to blacks and the wheel chairbound). If the loan is federally insured, the appraisal will be rejected until all language passes the language censor. (We have to descibe it as a large bedroom with large closet).
We can't point out the fact that half the houses in a project have bars on the windows. Can't tell the whole story if the truth conflicts with PC.
We can't point out the fact that every 3rd house is boarded up and vacant cuz it ain't PC to do so.
If illegal acts are being committed in the subject house, we can't say nuttin that aint PC.
PC divides society into 2 classes:
1. Those protected by PC.
2. Everyone else, for whom PC paints a bullseye on their back.
PC is perhaps the most insidious form of censorship, as it censors only certain voices.