How is it at all interesting if it isn't a fair comparison? What you are suggesting isn't what you are defending here: you're suggesting that we compare two entirely different scenarios and then defending it by saying it is worth doing an entirely different thought experiment.
(For the record, I'm appalled that anyone would consider anything that could remotely be called "web censorship" as a response, I just don't think you're making any sense here).
Sorry let me clarify. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.
Does this make more sense? Again I don't agree with the comparison of the two acts.
(For the record, I'm appalled that anyone would consider anything that could remotely be called "web censorship" as a response, I just don't think you're making any sense here).