Incorrect, if you define of 'censorship' as the illegal suppression of information, as I and others do.
Any structural changes (including withholding information - or will you no longer complacently consent to living under a system wherein secret classifications exist?) are entirely legal, and so not 'censorship'.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea, but the system you're in does not magically adapt to suit your ideals in any given system. If you're not going to understand it well enough to understand where it needs to change, you're just going to be a waste of time for anyone wishing to discuss means to do so, and so not worth engaging for those people.
No, it isn't. I have looked at several definitions now and none match yours, indeed explicitly the reverse.
I don't know why you keep prattling on when its clear everywhere you look for this defintion it is the reverse. It has nothing to do with an act of government. Government may censor, but so may a private individual: a publisher can censor an author, etc.
It is merely the withholding of information on political or moral grounds.
"to "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable. Censorship is the name for the process or idea of keeping things like obscene word or graphic images from an audience. There is also such a thing as self-censorship, which is when you refrain from saying certain things — or possibly re-wording them — depending on who is listening."
"to remove anything offensive from books, films, etc., or to remove parts considered unsuitable from private letters, especially ones sent during war or from a prison:"
