Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, and I understand the reasons why this idea makes people uncomfortable. We are expressing our opinions here -- let's all resist the urge to demonize those holding opposing positions by suggesting that they advocate more extreme positions than they really do.

As an involved, caring father of three, I try to exercise some degree of control over things my kids are exposed to, without raising them in Skinner's box. Popular culture is pervasive, and I have no wish to cut it off entirely; I just like to have a clue what they're coming in contact with. Healthy sexual activity between consenting adults doesn't bother me, but victimization (intentional infliction of pain, force, etc.) does. Violent entertainment is a more serious threat to my kids' well-being, as far as I am concerned -- and again, it is pervasive. Others may draw the lines in different places, and that's fine -- I'm not saying my answers are the right ones for everybody. But if we had some system that gave us a general sense of content, it would help.

As for censorship, I'm probably going out on a limb here, but I think it has its place. Explicit advocacy of violence against specific segments of society -- defined by race, gender, religion, occupation, mental capacity, income level, or any similar criteria -- are out of bounds as far as I am concerned, and I think they should be regulated. If I threaten someone on the street with bodily harm, I can and should be arrested. If I issue the same threat more generally through electronic media, I should be equally accountable -- I shouldn't get a free ride by calling it "art". I know censorship is a dirty word to some, but I think we need it when our "free speech" goes this far.