Since the press can play such an influential role in determining the perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government censorship. Inflammatory articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in developing political systems.
In other words, the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, specifically those related to the First Amendment, arent absolute, according to Brennan, and may be, in certain circumstances, abrogated or even ignored altogether.
We supported Sadat and Mubarak.
The censored the press.
It was probably a good thing they did.
What's the problem?
Does the writer really think some kind of democratic "Arab Spring" would have happened in Egypt with an uncensored press?