How you frame the question influences answers. I’ll try to give the correct answer by reframing the question slightly as other than yes or no.
The philosophical question censorship is not whether government should have the ability, but (1) whether members of the military should or can sign a contract for secrecy inclusive of ‘accidents’ within the fog of war, and exclusive of deliberate immoral actions; and whether that contract has been broken by some member of the military or a non-military person, and (2) whether citizens, or heirs, should possess the universal standing to sue for reparations in the event that such actions subject them to harm. Censorship is always a license for bad behavior from governments, that too often specialize in bad behavior. Restitution in court is a much more effective means of suppressing bad behavior on everyone’s part, citizen and government as well, than censorship which produces so many negative externalities.
The combination of contract and harm under the law is superior to monopoly discretion on the part of a bureaucrat or politician with conflicting interests.