The judicial is a branch of government that I actually probably have the most respect for, but there are always activist judges that seem to waste time (but to be fair, it works both ways...a lot of activist judges accomplish a lot of good).
When it comes to things like this you have to wonder what the best course of action would be for a government. I think we can all more or less agree that from a realist perspective the government shouldn't be getting involved anyways, but in a hypothetical case where it was neccesary, what would be a just course? The legislative is prone to corruption, incompetence, and special interests, so we couldn't really give them the power to ban anything from a non-biased perspective...but at the same time we'd have to imagine that in such a hypothetial case the legislative would have to be involved as they are the people's representatives and the policy makers. It would also be ridiculous to give the judicial the authority to act on their own in this kind of case, as it is specifically beyond their intended power to impress their will upon the people. We'd have to assume that if this kind of thing was neccesary that the legislative would have to make a paticular policy regarding the censorship, and that would have to be tested by the judicial and approved, or rejected. That seems like the only just way to do this in a democratic republic.
I bring this up because I'm still wondering why the fuck this was even going on in a courtroom.