(more on the philosophy of morals, feel free to tell me to shut up about non-practical stuff)
CodeTRUCKER, your arguments are both flawed. Perhaps I don't thoroughly get your response to "censorship", because it seems like you're saying that it shouldn't concern us until it reaches the level of despotism. It's quite clear that you are asking for censorship, whether directly via rules, or indirectly via an implied threat of repurcussions (just like the regime under which movies are "regulated"). Saying "if you link to porn sites we'll deactivate your account" is most certainly censorship. But it's Mouser's board, he's free to make such a restriction if he so decides.
Since you seem to be well educated, let me point out that the silencing of people like Dalton Trumbo (http://en.wikipedia....g/wiki/Dalton_Trumbo
) was done under the aegis of the "House Un-American Activities Committee" in the name of preserving American morals. And of course it wasn't censorship (I say with sarcasm), they were just protecting America from this dangerous man who wouldn't provide Congress with information about Communists.
Your "morals policing" analogy is also flawed. The teacher is correct to stop the student, but not for the reasons of morality that you suggest. It's because the students are there each to obtain the education that they're paying for, and the unruly students are violating the property rights of the others by interfering with the teaching of the class, denying them the educational service that they've paid for. The situation would be quite the same if rather than being raunchy, they were singing "Michael Row the Boat Ashore".
No one in our society is guaranteed the right to freedom from offense. At least in principle we value the opportunity for a voice in the marketplace of ideas more highly than we do delicate sensibilities. First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes this through the doctrine of Prior Restraint (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Prior_restraint
). In America you can't be prevented
by the gov't from saying something. (Although you can be held responsible later if it damages others) -- but as I said previously, this ties the hands of government, but doesn't prevent the speaker's colleagues from telling him he's a jerk: we all
enjoy the same freedom.
Also, you never addressed my practical concerns about, e.g., the appropriateness of ...ummm... inappropriate language ... in a relevant topic like spam filtering. Should I be allowed to freely (that is, without requiring an NSFW tag) identify the names of anatomical parts and intimate acts when we are discussing them in terms of a symptom of a legitimate computer-related problem?