The censorability of a concept, movement or ideology is its vulnerability of being censored by its opponents.
Censorability can be quantified on a scale from "0" to "1", where "0" reflects an ideology that can completely withstand efforts to censor it, while "1" indicates easy suppression through censorship. A perfect score for censorability is "0", reflecting maximum strength.
The score is dependent in part on how the ideology or movement is expressed. For example, if a unique statement or outward sign is required as an essential part of the ideology, then it will have higher censorability than if its articulation is varied.
Ideologies can be rated for relative censorability as an indication of long-term strength.
Over time, movements that are relatively difficult to censor -- i.e., have a low censorability -- can thrive. An example is the pro-life movement: it has virtually a perfect "0" degree of censorability.
|Concept or Ideology||Censorability
(Scale 0 to 1)
|Pro-Life||0||Virtually impossible to censor.|
|Atheism||0.2||Many do not quickly recognize its forms.|
|Tea Party Movement||0.3||liberals haven't been able to censor it yet|
|Homosexual agenda||0.3||By claiming that criticism of immoral and unhealthy lifestyles is "bigotry," pro-homosexual activists are able to censor critiques of their political agenda.|
|Christianity||0.5||Dimwitted censorship of Christian references often occurs|
|Creationism||0.9||Absent from virtually every public school curriculum world-wide|
Different media, institutions and environments are more censor-prone than others. Colleges are extremely censor-prone environment, perhaps due to a small group of people acting with no accountability. The internet is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and is relatively immune to censorship.