Those are a few examples off the top of my head. Shall we now censor and ban Shakespeare, Marlow, Pasolini, Euripides, MacMillan, Ibsen? At the very least let's keep our children away from these dangerous, sick so-called artists. But there's no fear of that, they'd rather be watching Hannah Montana & High School Musical.
This one point is, I think, still seriously off. Because many of the adults who take their children to Disney World continue to go there afterward BY THEMSELVES, because they LOVE it. Most of the people I know who watch American Idol and the other TV trash are adults, even though I know the teens watch them. But it's a whole culture of people of all ages who are now consuming the same silly stuff. I do not think you have a point that 'they'd rather be watching Hannah Montana & High School Personal', because it's just most people are all doing that. Maybe more young people, it seems to me that everybody is going for these bimbo things, not just the kids. So there are going to be some Enquiring Minds among the kids too.
I guess what I am saying is that you just have to be pro-censorship or anti-censorship, but people have usually made up their minds hard on these matters and are not going to change just because one is 'rational' (I mean I think you are being, but so what.) So the fact is that children either have to be at risk for these things or not. One decides which is the greater risk, that children might find their way to the 'naughty things' (I did) and these 'ruined their lives' (some would say mine was, others would say the contribution had been invaluable), or whether censorship is the greater risk. I certainly agree that the latter is far worse, but then I'm talking of my own interests. And they're talking about theirs; so it really becomes more ideological and political than intellectual/rational at a certain point. What I'm saying is it's, ultimately, not a matter of the rational always being the most powerful, although it is, as with everything else, to a certain degree 'the reason of the stronger is always right' (not morally, but just de facto, as long as something prevails, it can be virtuous or wicked). It is like trying to argue rationally for legalization of drugs or differences of opinion on abortion, religion, etc., it's not only not possible to fully succeed in it, it's also true that the more reactionary side does have at least some points. The only one that seems to me to be valid is that, yes, there will be some young people who find their ways to literally anything, including challenging difficult works. So that what seems 'rational' to us (and probably is, at least we are quite convinced it is) doesn't matter to those who oppose it, there are limits on how convincing the rational argument can be.
Another point to make from the other side while not supporting them, is that while I think it entirely wrong to censor and block the de Frutos piece because of its lewdness or whatever, I also don't think it's that serious. Naturally, there would be some backlash from the radio personality (Ross?) you told us about; but that is natural given that things are already so unleashed the bared, and this nakedness itself (however much the backlash), already proved that 'anything really does go', not the other way around. And it's the very prevalence of all the filth you've cited that proves that: With all that there, it's not really very likely that serious censorship of old regimes will ever take hold again. As for 'perverts' in Victorian times and 'hypocrisy', oh well, sure, but there are all sorts of periods in which the emphasis goes back and forth. But we're not now in an Age of Censorship in any serious way.