"It's wrong to say "that guy has dangerous ideas and should be censored", but it's another thing to say "that guy killed nearly 90 people to promote his manifesto, we should make sure he doesn't get what he wanted""

But that's still censorship, you've just added some spin. Simply put you can't have it both ways. Either individuals are free to speak their mind (regardless of how heinous you may find their viewpoint) or they aren't, and if they aren't that's censorship and oppression.

It has nothing to do with his ideas, it could have been a cake cookbook for all I care. What matters is that he used terror to promote it, and shouldn't be rewarded with the attention he desired.

I'm not calling for government censorship of the document, and I'm not saying I agree with anonymous, but dismissing it as censorship ignores their actual, more noble intentions.

Ah, but there's the meat of our disagreement: "noble intentions". I don't see anything noble about an attempt at censorship, be it by private citizens or some government agency. How is this any different from proposing random edits be inserted into Mein Kampf or the Koran?

Except that he didn't do the killing to promote his manifesto (I thought that was a bit weird in Anonymous' statement), he did it to harm the Norwegian Labour Party.

Quite successfully, unfortunately. Those kids in the camp, especially the older ones, were probably going to fill the ranks of the real Labour party later on in life, politicians of the future. Now their future intelligentsia is either dead or suffering PTSD. (also remember that Norway is rather thinly populated)

That was his goal. To hurt the Labour party, and he hurt them bad.

In the manifesto he pretty clearly states he did it to promote the manifesto.

That should be the media's responsibility.