This thinking was a result of the pedophile book thread (The reason I'm not just putting this in the thread is because it's something I've been thinking about and I believe is valid or worth discussion even if the book is a massive troll and that it's applicable to much beyond that.), which I was posting in about how I don't really believe in free speech the way it's construed by people defending the decision to have the book on the legitimate market, that we have to accept this kind of speech in order to "have freedom" (quotes because freedom is so ill-defined or non-existent in the way people were defining it to me). It sort of disappointed me that in our sophisticated society people aren't seeing deeper than "freedom good, restriction bad."
What I mean is as follows. It's sort of an offshoot of something I'm familiar with, theories of demographic transition, into more applying it to ideologies and social structures/culture (which I'm not as familiar with so if there's serious academic research into this, direct me to it...). The Benjamin Franklin quote people throw around is an example I'd like to use (on sacrificing freedom for security). When he said that, America was a fledgling country that was just escaping from control of an imperial monarchy. At that time, it was important for establishing what we now see as a more modern way of thinking to embrace as much freedom of speech and other freedoms in order to develop, as the issue of governmental tyranny was a very present danger. Similarly the Enlightenment in Europe had just over the past century significantly influenced people's thinking away from the religious tyranny of the dark ages and such.
We could say Western society was very early in its development of our modern systems of thinking, basically like a child, and therefore the messages it needs to be presented with are necessarily straightforward and blunt, like "freedom at all costs." which responded to a significant harm of the day and could be digested by the populace that was relatively new to this applying rational thought without being directly ruled thing. You can't get a society new at that to absorb the nuances that we can see today exist in the freedom question, the foundations need to be laid first (although I'm sure philosophers of the time had extremely prescient things to say).
This is why I see the question of opposing censorship in speaking against the Church in the Dark Ages and censorship today as two completely different questions. In the societies of developed countries today, we are quite far removed from that in terms of the amount of education and information the citizenry possess. The level of sophistication among average people is incomparable to any previous historical period, and the social structures we've built reflect that sophistication. Does anyone deep down really think anymore that the United States is going to become a truly repressive regime that is going to suppress dissent and rule its people with an iron fist? There are so many social/political structures in place to prevent that, so many people paying attention with the information and the means to fight that, and people constantly in power who care about preserving what we have that this is really not a realistic danger here or in almost all developed 1st world countries. So I don't believe we need a bombastic "freedom or else we'll have tyranny" blunt ideology in these societies, because it's not a danger we are facing. Whereas in that time, the population didn't even have access to the information or have developed enough capacities to even form a reasonable consensus that they agreed with the system or individual practices, so the censorship presented was extraordinarily damaging, which the most educated thinkers like Galileo or Copernicus could realize.
Furthermore, with the sophistication, aren't we capable of applying a finer more precise tool to the question of limiting freedom? Don't we have that luxury? People surely realize that people who continually operate in society can't be free in a sense of having no limits, speech is limited, behavior is limited, etc. because we have to get along with other people. So in our situation, applying the hammer of freedom of speech good, censorship bad is not productive in the least. Everyone undeniably accepts some form of censorship, so the question is where to draw the line, and what I hope is people realize that this is the question. Similar to when someone is a young adult he has to go back and refine his beliefs that carried him through childhood because they were rooted (necessarily because of a lack of capacity for understanding) in a simplistic world view rather than a nuanced one that is now developing.
Therefore our society has emerged into a position where we can evaluate what sorts of things are prescient to allow and what is detrimental to humanity without needing to maintain a rigid ideological stance that gives the proper general shape (although now I believe other challenges we relatively recently have become awakened to, like sustainability, need more of this). We can look at the question of whether we are better off if information about bombs should be readily available (in certain emergencies is this useful? is it needed to "keep our government honest" so to speak?) or obscene/violent art displayed (arts are based on freedom of ideas and in my view freedom in artistic pursuits is necessary, and that arts are a pillar of our society and must be maintained) or speech that incites to criminal behavior published, and if all criminal behavior is equal in this regard. And do each of these outweigh the cost to society.
Preserving in particular the ideals of pedophilia and education into its methods, is this something that we collectively find to be valuable? If we don't find it valuable collectively, for what reason is it so important that we allow every kind of ideal to be freely published despite the harm it can cause? Do we find it valuable enough or this reason compelling enough to offset the cost that some individuals might move from thought to action because its legitimized in a book or methods are taught, and that children are put in more danger because of that? I believe we can tackle these questions where we are at in the development of our society rather than fall back on "freedom or else" when clearly we don't even believe this based on what we have in place: it's illegal to publish ideas on assassinating the president, it's illegal to tell someone what to do in order to commit suicide, it's illegal to incite a riot, it's illegal to yell "fire" in crowds, it's illegal to commit slander or libel, etc..
Freedom is clearly a gray scale in a nuanced view and we have to be open to move the lines around and adjust them from archaic positions whose justifications have passed.