> That isn't self-censorship, it's accepting that your work didn't read the way you wanted it to and deciding it's not worth having it out there under your name any more.
You are confused about the definition of the word censor:
> [to prevent part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censor)
I understand Lawrence has reasons for his calls for censorship. All censorious people have reasons for their demands. They are still calls for censorship. Lawrence is free to not speak. He's even free to demand that media be censored. No one has argued otherwise.
I'm aware of the definition of censorship, but the context is you saying:
> One of the worst cultural developments of this century has been creative people becoming censorship-hungry prudes.
This is not the same as a dictionary definition of censorship generally.
Presenting people changing their views over time as they learn as some evidence of some new trend of "censorship-hungry prudes" is silly. It's hysteria and a false narrative trying to paint something normal and healthy as equivalent to something dangerous.
The much bigger media preservation issue is actually represented by Scrubs: the fact that all the streaming services now have the show with all the music cut out and replaced with generic royalty-free stuff because the licenses ran out.