Anecdotally, from when I did first amendment activism, my lawyers would always recommend that I stick to doing it with dead tree editions as much as possible. Literal book banning and/or burning has direct judicial precedent that is hard to contest, enforced by lots of precedent.
The problem with moving out of the dead tree medium is that suddenly a whole host of alternative, untested legal theories can be thrown at you. Even if they are preposterous or 'obviously wrong' to the lay person, these alternative theories increase the cost of litigation, and limits the quick remedies you can seek, because the judge has to consider now if your situation is different from precedent.
If your adversary is well funded they can just keep on throwing up 'but what about...' theories to the court for years and years, effectively achieving censorship without setting any meaningful legal precedent.
Then they can reuse this strategy again and again, and anytime a litigant gets close to winning they settle out of court, avoiding clear legal precedent and thus preserving this 'legal purgatory' path (settlements do not create legal precedent).
Basically, they learned from experience with books how to avoid other media getting the same level of effective legal protection.
It's a clever exploit on the legal system, but not great for actual justice.