[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

It's simply banned as being taught as scientific fact, because - who woulda thunk - it isn't scientific fact.

Well, okay, but you've restated the definition of censorship as an argument that it isn't censorship.

The problem I think is that bans on speech are censorship but this doesn't mean censorship is in itself objectionable, but many people consider censorship objectionable wholesale, so they're reluctant to call it that. Some people believe that censorship only applies to public speech, and there's a weird debate about that, but in a broader sense "censorship" just means "bans on speech", regardless of private or public context.

You are not allowed to commit fraud because deceitful speech on products is banned. This is a kind of censorship I support.

Curricula indirectly ban a lot of other things from being taught anyway by mandating what must be taught, so I don't think excluding creationism would cause any harm. My only concern would be what would happen if the precedent were reworked to ban information for more political reasons, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ce_controversy