If it is the public's impression in general that you are trying to protect, then perhaps we can have a feature where individual members can choose whether they want to view threads with censorship or without censorship.
Then most people will see the censored posts by default, and those who have it turned off can see the uncensored posts once they log in and be as offended as they please.
Not sure if that would work or not.
ABE: See that RAZD already mentioned the same thing
If it is the public's impression in general that you are trying to protect...
For me it's all just vocabulary. I guess that means we wouldn't get approval for children beneath a certain age, but there are no public sensibilities I'm trying to protect. I'm just trying to better leverage the moderator resources we have.
I added some censored words to someone else for a while, I think it was Dr Adequate. I know he doesn't lack for ego, but even so, I don't think the guy recognizes his own talent for creative expression. It seemed to me that the censoring caused an increase in his creative output, to all our mutual benefit.
And in my opinion, the censoring has had the same effect on Jar.
Given Faith has opted to take simple measures to defeat the Forum Software's Censorship System - I think a case can be made to remove the restrictions. They just impede her saying what she is going to say anyway, make it difficult for searches to find posts of her's that use the word in the future and actually, I expect, confuse lots of people as to why she insists on calling things 'IN/SANE'