> This kind of censorship has nothing to do with being a nanny state. ... Is China a nanny state? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Eritrea? What about the continent-spreading empires of the last century that were run by mustachioed gentlemen, were they 'nanny' states?

It is related, because censorship is authoritarian, and nanny-statism is authoritarian. If the government of a democratic society thinks it should tell its people what they can and can't say, then it's likely that that government (i.e. society) also thinks it should intrude into people's lives and protect them from themselves, because personal responsibility is dangerous. This correlation certainly holds for Australia, which is why I mentioned it.

Those countries you mentioned - China, Saudi Arabia, etc - aren't democratic, so I don't think their authoritarianism reflects the societal will. Thus, the authoritarianism doesn't transfer to, e.g., the government telling people they can't ride a bicycle without a helmet. Authoritarian and democratic countries are nanny-states, almost by definition: e.g., the UK, Australia, Singapore.

> RSF still rates the US as being less free than Australia when it comes to the press

I love the Reporters Without Borders, but I don't think their Press Freedom Index has much merit. Not only is its methodology flawed and subjective, but the calculation of the index is highly opaque, and so I suspect it's somewhat politicized.

We don't know (1) the number of respondents from each country, (2) the kinds of respondents from each country, or (3) the distribution of answers to the questionnaire for each country. Without those things, we can't talk empirically about press freedom. As it stands, we can only speculate on what the simplified "index" means.

You mentioned the US as a comparison for press freedom: I'd like to point out that the US is home to a number of organizations that publish very controversial opinions, like Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, Cryptome, The Intercept, etc. I find it very, very difficult to imagine these organizations existing in Australia (or many of the countries at the top of the RSF's index) -- don't you? I mean, it's illegal to publish "racist" opinion here, and the majority of Australian society seems fine with that - any American I mention that to laughs in my face, and rightly so.

Furthermore, the US also has a number of excellent (at times) news organizations, like The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, and PBS. Sure, these organizations are influenced by the US government, but influence isn't quantitative. To say that the ABC, or the Sydney Morning Herald, or Nine are influenced by the Australian government less is mere speculation.

All news organizations are influenced by the society to which they serve, and the government to which they report on. You should always try to vary who and where you get your news from, and always be aware of bias.

> As for whether it's a good thing or not to be a 'nanny' state, perhaps have a look at the quality of life in the 'nanny' versus non-'nanny' states.

As an Australian, I don't think banning psychoactive drugs, nor banning "racist" speech, nor mandatory bike helmets, nor bar lockouts at 12pm, nor homeschooling restrictions do anything to improve the quality of life here. In fact, I think those policies harm the quality of life significantly.

Australia's economic success (and thus "quality of life") is thanks to its (small-l) liberal economic policies of the 80s and 90s, and the resources boom of the 00s -- not because I can't buy a joint at a cafe here.

FWIW, if you're basing your judgment of "quality of life" on the UN Human Development Index, know that that is another highly simplified and flawed index. I'll let you look into that on your own. The HDI certainly isn't a ranking of quality of life - but a well-traveled person like yourself would know that, right?