That your third point of view matches exactly the "No Censorship!!! Goddammit!" school of thought is merely one of semantics?

Words are all we have. Yes I may not like censorship but the reason and words I gave for this were not the ones you stated. I value the scary concept of the freedom for others to be able to say what they wish and the freedom for me to agree, disagree or to ignore it

Right.   If a group of people really wish to have a moderated discussion, am I correct in thinking that you would deny them any means to do so?   No matter how many, and for what reason?   You would deny them such a forum.

Why on earth would you deduce from what I have said, that I would want to deny anybody this? If others choose or prefer to post to such a forum - what right would I have to deny them the freedom to do this? As long as I or others clearly knew this to be the case in advance - we have the freedom to join or not to join this forum.

Because it is wrong for people to deny others the right of expression? And any code of conduct that allows "offensive" material to be removed, is such a denial.

Wrong it may be but it less a matter of judgement and principle than one of practical reality. Who judges this and what good does this reactive measure do but to bring attention to the very material that has already done its 'damage'?

So, in this brave new world, no group shall agree a code of conduct between themselves, for it could be politically uncorrect on any stranger who barges in on them.   (Am I really getting this right?)

No far from it. It is just such a code of conduct that the vast majority of posters here do try to follow and an example that any stranger can easily follow. Sadly the less positive example of judgement of the worth of each other's postings and requesting editing action based on that judgement being imposed, is currently being set.

And if you arrive unannounced and unwanted, and you wish to make a recruiting pitch for pedeophiles, I not only have to let you have your say, I must leave your diatribe intact for evermore in case someone else wishes to read it? You ask of me, sir, more than you will grant unto me.

This is a music forum which has a place that in theory practically anything can be placed there. Why anyone would wish to make recruiting pitch for pedeophiles here is unclear and I for one would not wish to see or encourage such things to be posted here. If it were, I am sure such a thread would have many posts that would make it perfectly clear what most people thought.

But should it happen - as I have said, the damage has largely been done. Do you then leave it and other equally offensive material in place? Probably not but where are those arguing for this material to be given a permanent home here, when there are so many online places for it? Some could argue that there is a right to post such stuff - it would not seem right to me, to post it here. When it is clear that you are talking only of damage limitation by reactive editing action - are the risks of censorship really worth all the resulting problems?

I won't post such stuff and I would not open a thread which made it clear what it contained and if I came across it, I would quickly move on. I suspect that most folk here would do the same, if it were to be left in place. However, without all the fuss and bringing shocked attention to something posted here, that we would simply ignore elsewhere online, it would fall off the bottom of the page and soon be forgotten. Perhaps that is the best way to deal with such things here?

But this remains a moderated forum. I am just trying to ensure that we do not get even more and the baby does not get thrown out with the current bathwater. My point really is that imposed editing is not currently limited to just these out of place contributions that not many would argue to keep. Under the cover of this - editing action is routinely imposed upon postings that are not these obvious candidates for reactive deletion. For example, entire threads are deleted because our volunteers cannot be bothered to make a distinction between the 'offensive' posts and the rest. Censorship does over time tend to lead the censor to generally devalue all contributions.

Censorship is a difficult and delicate matter. All I expect is that enough care is taken here to ensure that nothing that should not be deleted is lost. If it were up to me and it came to a stark choice between ensuring this at the expense of leaving in place the sort of offensive material you refer to - I would choose no censorship at all but would make it clear to all contributors in advance that this was the case.

A lot of the trouble here comes from the fact that many have been posting for many years under the impression that there is no censorship and this is an un-moderated fourum. Sadly it is neither fish nor foul and this is not really made very clear when folk start to post.