In regards to this idea of good and evil being inseparable, it shows how censorship doesn't really work because in order to truly protect the masses from evil or things deemed bad, good things would have to be censored as well. I can see this in the article I read. The Iran Culture Ministry went an extra step to remove all things remotely related to something deemed bad. So an author couldn't make any references to something like alcohol, because it was seen as something not good for the people. It didn't matter if the author was denouncing alcohol or simply talking about it. It was all terrible in the eyes of the censors. In a weird way, I can see where the censors were coming from. They wanted to take away all mentions of alcohol to protect the readers. It wouldn't really work, but I can understand their reasoning.
What I don't understand was their reasoning behind not allowing authors to mention God at all. They couldn't even praise him because the Culture Ministry felt that only certain authors who were faithful revolutionary followers were worthy to mention God. That to me is less of a concern for the masses and more of a political movement. And I think that's where one of the biggest issues with censorship lies. Once it becomes mixed with politics, censorship is no longer about the masses; it's about the people in power.
That's something I think Milton was arguing against, which was how censorship doesn't serve the purpose of the people. Rather, it serves the purpose of the censors, the government. I hadn't thought about how political censorship really is. Most of the time, it's not the state of the masses, but the power granted to the censors that becomes the driving force for censorship. Seeing that, I feel like I understand a little better what Milton was fighting against.
Here's a link to the article: