If a book distributor is going to be criticised for censorship, we should criticise it for voluntary censorship (where it can legally sell a book but makes a voluntary policy decision not to do so), rather than legally mandated censorship under the laws of whatever country. The principle is you have greater responsibility for decisions you make in full freedom than decisions you make under legal coercion. This analysis misses the mark because all the cases it cites are effectively legally mandated censorship, and it ignores all the cases of voluntary censorship