It depends on what it is at risk of being censored, where that censorship would take place, and who is aiming to do the censoring. It also depends on whether someone else is paying the writer to do the writing, whether the writing is in someone's own book or on someone's own website, and on whether it's "genuine censorship" (or, instead, a matter of having writing guidelines/rules in some venues).
If a writer has something important to say then I think he ought to say it, even if that means he has to print out his own writing, make a bunch of xerox copies, and distribute it himself. That's what saying some things might require, but I think the writer (again, who has something important to say) should find a way to write what he wants.
If it's a matter of, for example, someone wanting to fill up his Hubs with a bunch of profanity and call it "writing freely" - then, no. A site like HP has a right to say what they don't want on their site for their own reasons. In that kind of instance, the writer should just find somewhere else for his profanity-riddled writing (which may be perfectly fine writing but which isn't welcomed on a site like HubPages or by advertisers).
Writers need to know how to pick their battles. It's not being "strong" to refuse to comply with some writing standards of some publishing venues. More importantly, they need to understand the difference between real censorship (with the intent of shutting someone up) and "seeming censorship" (when writers are asked to find another way to say what they want to say). Most of the time, a talented/skilled writer can say what he wants to say (and in a powerful way) without running into "censorship issues". In those instances when that isn't possible, then I think the writer should write whatever he feels is important to him but understand that the particular piece won't be welcomed in some venues. If it's the government aiming to do the censoring - then that's a completely different thing.