Plato and art censorship (fwd)

[Adassovsky Georges]

About censorship, since some opinions have been expressed, on the list and
privately, I am asking myself some questions.
What is better, for an author, to be censored prior to publishing, or to be
prosecuted after?
For example, right now, it is illegal in France to publish antisemitic
ideas, and some authors have been condemned.
So a judge is facing a text, and he must tell if this text is antisemitic
or not. It is exactly the same work as a censor.
When Radishchev published his "voyage..", there was no censorship in Russia
(1790). he was condemned to 10 years of bannishment in Siberia. Maybe he
would have prefered to have been censored?
After that Ekaterina installed censorship, may be she thought it was a
progress?
One may believe that, if there is freedom of speech, nobody can be
condemned for what he says, no matter what he says, and if there is no
freedom of speech, better to be censored a priori than condemned a
posteriori.
Is it possible to publish segregationist ideas to day in the U.S.A?
Well, I know there is a consensus about prohibitting segregationism and
antisemitism.
But, may be, at the beginning of the XIXth century, after the French
revolution,two hundreds years ago, there was a consensus in Russia about
prohibitting the publishing of antigovernment, antireligious, and immoral
ideas?

Georges.