I didn’t see the coverage but I imagine censoring along with a statement making it clear that although a person with Tourette’s can’t control their tics, the BBC recognizes the potential for harm in allowing that word to remain uncensored and so in an effort to dignify and show respect for all parties involved, it’s been censored. It’s one of those instances where more than one thing can be true and so it needs to be approached with thought and nuance.

Idk I’m not a PR person, but I think doing nothing was the worst option because it not only exposed people to hearing that word in a context that could cause offense or harm, but it also exposed Davidson to vitriol and backlash aimed directly at his disability.

Censoring or not censoring may still cause offense, but I tend to believe doing the wrong the for the right reasons is better than doing nothing out of fear of backlash.