They are, however, mutually overlapping. If the creators are in prison then they're not distributing any content, nor causing any more to be created which subsequently gets distributed. Which means that 99% of effort should be focused on stopping the creators and censorship is something that you should only do when it isn't a trade off against anything important.

In particular, it means that we don't need prior restraint or intermediary liability. If someone is posting something so bad that it's a crime then it will come out at the poster's trial and their deterrent to posting it is the criminal penalties, not YouTube's account strike random number generator. If something isn't that bad then it doesn't need to be censored whatsoever.

Notice also that the premise that we can actually censor the things you're using as your example is contrary to evidence. What are you going to do about a server in another jurisdiction? Do we need a censorship apparatus which is only effective for suppressing dissenting mass market content while being useless for the thing used as the example to justify its existence?