Blowing people up got Ted Kaczynski's anti-technology manifesto printed in the NYTimes. Even if got through to one person I bet he feels like it was worth it.
It's not something to admit in polite company but violence is a great way to start a conversation.
Big companies are morality load balancers. Technically a CEO is morally responsible for what their company does, but this does not truly feel right either. The example scenario goes like this:
The shareholders decide that more money must be made
The CEO decides that more money will be made by obtaining more wood. The hows and whys are kept vague at this stage. Nothing concrete will be put on paper. Upper management decides that resource acquisition will be guided by a study on the various pros and cons of chopping what wood where.
The study confirms that we the best place to get wood is the amazon rain forest. Middle management receives the plans and guidelines from on high. Slowly the moral responsibility is distributed through the ranks. Until, years later, when some pollution case comes to light the question is asked: who to blame? The workers? The results of an objective study? The incentives set by shareholders and a cutthroat market for wood?
"Morally correct" as in according to one's moral principles? Is that, in its turn, something that we all agree on and share?
Terrorists definitely hold moral principles that are different from mine. To a terrorist, blowing people up to bring attention to their point may be the morally correct thing to do.
Hence we have terrifying people like Kaczynski with extremely strong moral convictions that deviate far from what is generally considered normal and socially acceptable, whose ill deeds are consistent and true to their moral principles.
Sure, terrorists disagree, but you're avoiding the fact that most people here - on this site, in this industry, in this country - agree that blowing people up for attention is morally incorrect.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That it's possible for someone to believe terrorism is good? I suspect most people already know that, but thankfully most of us disagree.
It's mostly a semantic argument. I'm arguing against using "correct" in a context where correctness evidently depends on morality, which is individual enough that this kind of person exists and thrives. That nullifies the whole basis of the argument that "There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship." I'm not sure that it was meant as an argument. Maybe it's just a cheap way to score points among "most people here", because it's rather pointless as an argument regardless of its validity.
Also, I assume that by this country you mean the U.S., where killing people at least partly to draw attention (for the purpose of general deterrence) is practiced by the justice system. I bet you'll find a lot more people in this crowd that agree with this on the basis of their morals. I know people who believe one thing but will at least briefly change their mind learning of some particularly heinous crime or some particularly tragic wrongful conviction. Correct/incorrect isn't really a scale, so which would pick for something a little more polarized like this?
I disagree with the premise of your post. There are not "correct" ways to "start a discourse" about censorship, because there are no ways to start a discourse about censorship.
There are a bunch of people doing the media dance around a topic, all within the confines of the status quo. The disagreements are loud, but the questions at stake are fixed. In appearing to debate conclusions, everyone is tricked into accepting the form of the argument.
The outcome of censorship arguments will be exactly the same as the outcome of privacy arguments: whatever benefits the system. Eich was run out of town on a rail after the status quo moved beyond thing he gave minor support to, while Zuckerberg is only experiencing a momentary PR blip until they can get everyone back on track of unironically defending his contract of adhesion as if it's not on-the-face abusive to end users.
The unfortunate truth is that this woman got more exposure for her message by taking the action she did then would have been possible by any other means.
That has some rather frightening implications for society.
Shooting people is not one of them.