In my humble opinion - though I hesitate to correct a historian and an enjoyable novelist - this seems a rather ahistorical simplification and presentation, with a huge missing context, that being the English Civil War (1642-1651.)
The law being discussed here amounted to a reinstatement of previously established pre-censorship, not newly instituting it.
Prior to the English Civil War, under the monarchy, censorship was done by the Star Chamber (which entered the language as a synonym for unfettered secret courts) directly appointed by the King. As one related example: “On 17 October 1632, the Court of Star Chamber banned all “news books” because of complaints from Spanish and Austrian diplomats” Wiki: Star Chamber
After Parliament seized power they abolished the Star Chamber in 1640; within a year there were over 300 news publishers. A few years later (1643) Parliament became appalled and instituted their own act to reintroduce advance censorship, the ‘Licensing Order of 1643’ which required registration of all presses via the Stationers’ Guild and pre-publication licensing.
One vast and destructive Civil War later…
The ‘Licensing Act of 1662’, after the monarchy had been restored, essentially reinstated and combined the two, keeping the registration of presses and mandatory licensing and adding a single official in charge of all censorship. “The provisions as to importation of books, the appointment of licensers, and the number of printers and founders were practically re-enactments of the similar provisions in an order of the Star Chamber of 1637.” And yes, it seems clear these provisions were specifically to ensure nothing critical of the king or government could be published - it effectively limited newspaper publication to the single one approved by the King’s agent.
Surely the actual printers would have been substantially more profitable and happier with the situation if more than a single newspaper had been allowed?
There are plenty of good arguments against Article 13, John Milton’s among them - why drag in questionably historical ones?
