I can't even fathom where your were introduced to censorship.

Legal documents. Then history classes and politics classes, both school and university.

Criticism isn't expression, it can't be censored.

I... wha... what?

Now I'm questioning where you get your idea of censorship and freedom of expression / speech from.

Lets start again.

Criticism is expression. The critic phrases his opinion of the work he criticises. If you disallow certain kind of criticism you are censoring.

Yes, people are not obliged to listen to the critic. Big fucking whoop, no one is obliged to listen to someones opinion or consume the art he creates. This doesn't imply that art, opinions and speech, everything that everyone has his basic right to ignore, is not protected by freedom of expression.

Is the critic adding to the world? Yes. He adds another interpretation of the art he criticises. There are even theories that see the criticism of art as an essential part of art itself. While the intent of the author is relevant he needs to be able to relay this to the audience (critics) and their interpretation, even if it varies, is viable.

Political criticism is always censorship? That is a bold claim for which I'd like actual sources and citation.

Do you believe that the analysis GG doesn't like is automatically, objectively correct?

I would believe that if I had no fucking clue what criticism and analysis is. But as an aspiring critic I value any kind of criticism since it adds to discourse. And unlike GG I read through the analysis and argue on the same basis against it if I disagree. And I don't argue that it should not exist.

But frankly: This is fucking irrelevant.

GG argues that certain criticism should not exist. I disagree. I think that even criticism and analysis I disagree with has its place. GG doesn't. For GG there is the right and wrong kind of criticism.