If censorship is government driven, it means that the law prohibits you to see some things
I don't think that's strictly true. Governments exert themselves in a number of ways that amount to 'soft censorship', and it is often neither illegal nor very difficult to circumvent these measures. They just want to make it inconvenient, and create an appearance of distance/disapproval. Politics rewards such hypocrisy.
For example, content filters on government-workplace or government-accomodation internet access. They may not really care if you tunnel around them – it's rarely illegal – they just want to make sure there's no appearance they condone the activity.
Even things like the national internet blacklists can fall into this category. They might require ISPs to block certain direct routes to disfavored sites, making access inconvenient. But the legal mandate is not to block all access via all means, and if you figure out how to access the target sites, you may not have broken any law (depending on what content you then copy/disseminate yourself).
I don't think that's strictly true. Governments exert themselves in a number of ways that amount to 'soft censorship', and it is often neither illegal nor very difficult to circumvent these measures. They just want to make it inconvenient, and create an appearance of distance/disapproval. Politics rewards such hypocrisy.
For example, content filters on government-workplace or government-accomodation internet access. They may not really care if you tunnel around them – it's rarely illegal – they just want to make sure there's no appearance they condone the activity.
Even things like the national internet blacklists can fall into this category. They might require ISPs to block certain direct routes to disfavored sites, making access inconvenient. But the legal mandate is not to block all access via all means, and if you figure out how to access the target sites, you may not have broken any law (depending on what content you then copy/disseminate yourself).