@Noyou:

"You can chose to brush words off all you want, it's what the majority of society deems offensive that matters. Sorry. You don't like it, live in a cave or on an island somewhere."

Serious question for you: if there are two ways to censor, by either A) controlling what can be said or done, or by B) controlling what you expose yourself to, why is the predominant opinion of those who favor censorship that option A is the correct one?

To wit: if I am listening to the radio, and a message I find offensive is broadcast, I can A) turn off the radio or tune to another station, or B) petition the government to enforce standards of broadcast decency. Which is the easier, least costly, least invasive option? Option A) - hands down. Yet, in America, we've gone with option B. Why? Because to some who are offended by ideas and actions, merely removing themselves is not enough; they need to *control* the behavior. They need to ensure that actions are taken to hinder or outright deny messages that they do not wish to be heard.

The problem with this is that some messages SHOULD be heard, no matter how offensive we may find them. There are times we must become offended enough to act. There are times when exposure to ideas we once considered offended help us see them in a new light and realize that the idea isn't nearly as offensive as we may once have believed. And this is the inherent problem with broad, legislated censorship, that we never have the opportunity to lift our own self-imposed veil of censorship and really tune in to what is being said. Instead, we have to rely on someone else choosing what we are permitted to hear, someone who is merely "looking out for our best interests."

TLDR: The profanity filter is there for a reason: you can turn in on and off at your choice. But to demand that everyone restrict (or have restricted for them) behaviors that you personally deem offensive, goes beyond censorship and into tyranny.