I've attempted to say this in a couple other threads, and I'm not sure if I've said it well.

I've attempted to say this in a couple other threads, and I'm not sure if I've said it well. I'm gonna put this down here to see if it makes sense.  This goes to a lot of how my mind words, the powerful proof by absurdity.

Recently, a tiny little publishing house that has a tiny little industry corner (more or less) pulled a repugnant title from its shelves. There were cries of "Right on!", and ridiculous cries of "censorship".

In discussion with anyone calling it censorship, I would do the following:
1. Grant the premise. -- that is, that DTRPG censored some asshole
2. Ask what activities are under this definition. -- which amounts to choosing what books to put on the shelf.
3. Change domains with an analogy -- if Amazon or B&N does the same thing, is it censorship?

At that point, the asshole has to either bite the bullet (Yes! B&N cannot curate!), have a definition of censorship that has no particular bite, or withdraw the claim.

All three are fine. Which is to say: Go ahead and grant the ridiculous premise. Then follow to where it leads.