I liked your post; I might not have expressed things the same way, but I like the overall attitude and approach; and the approach reflects the attitude admirably. I'm responding to your six questions not because I'm part of the "TRULY. SUPERIOR. MATURE. AND. SMART. SET." but because I think they're worth addressing.

• A. just *WHAT IS* 'profanity', 'swear' words, 'unacceptable' language, etc... (and the reason is, NO ONE wants to touch that tarbaby, they KNOW it leads to being a CENSOR, and how can a squishy-soft pinko liberal (*ptui*) be a CENSOR ?!!! )

  I don't think they're unacceptable as such. Words have their own purposes, and the double standard of teaching children they're too young to know or use some words, then telling them as adults that using those words is childish, is a little ludicrous. I love a good Anglo-Saxon curse word. They appeal to my sense of outrage at the mixed absurdity and horror of life.

  That said, in a world where many of us access Salon from work (during lunch breaks, for example), and many workplaces filter online communications in order to track access to porn or hate sites access, some words can create unintended trouble. So I avoid them, and sadly change pages when I'm at lunch and encounter them on Salon.

• B. just *WHAT IS* the 'appropriate time and place' (ie never, nowhere) for 'dirty' language and strong words ? ? ?

  Any setting that doesn't interfere with the ability of others to do the agreed-upon primary purpose of their presence. So, cursing in church would probably make it harder for most people (not me, particularly) to achieve a peaceful state of mind. Cursing in the workplace, in most situations, implies to most management an inability to maintain balance, and therefore can make you seem less likely to make good decisions on behalf of the company. (This varies widely according to the workplace; I've worked some places where a good, creative string of epithets means the top artist was on a roll, and we all felt good as a result.)

  And of course, there's the network filtering issue. I don't support such practices, but I respect the companies' right to make those decisions.

• C. just *WHAT IS* the role of these quasi-public commons which increasingly dominate 'our' (sic) society; such that about the only place a dissident citizen has to TRULY AND FREELY express themselves is the privacy of their own home, anonymously scribbling online...

  I thought these were places for those with similar interests to intelligently and respectfully share their views. **coughs violently** Sorry, had to clear out the ashes into which my tongue just turned. Seriously, I think these are places where those of us who don't have other outlets can share our views; where the lone liberal surrounded by conservatives can find a safe place to express herself, or where the expert with a desire to share/teach can do so, or where the interested person with a relevant insight or experience can share that.

  For some individuals, anonymity is crucial for this. The expert may be a whistleblower; the interested person's relevant experience may not be one their boss wants them to share; the isolated liberal may fear to lose her job (I've lost one job to blogging. I posted that a diocese should be able to elect a gay bishop if they wanted to, if they thought he was the right person for the job. I lost my excellent network engineering job for another religious organization that disagreed.)

• D. just *WHAT IS* the reasonable expectation of a (supposedly) mature, adult reader in being exposed to 'objectionable' words, ideas, concepts, writers, or other 'controversial' situations in a no-holds-barred environment...

  I've been trolled and attacked on Salon, slashdot, and similar places; I've received compliments as well. I think it's understandable (if not admirable) when people lash back in response, but not when they troll.

  Clarity for me came when I read a Univ. of Chicago study that said most emails (just over 50%) were misunderstood, and most of the time they were misunderstood negatively. That is, a negative interpretation was given where none was intended. So I've been better able to accept attacks ("they just didn't get me") and to step back when I myself see red ("maybe I don't get them").

  As Jon Postel, Internet pioneer, put it: Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send.

  Not a bad approach.

• E. just *WHAT IS* the REAL agenda of 'nice', 'polite', non-threatening sheeple who WANT TO CENSOR you (REPEAT, they WANT TO CENSOR you; i don't give a shit what they 'say', what they want to DO, is CENSOR)...

  The agenda of censorship is to suppress dissent. No topic should be unacceptable for discussion. No topic should be beyond respectful discourse, either.

• F. if 'free speech' is all to be so nice and prettified and non-offensive and harmless, THEN IT DOESN'T NEED 'protection', 'cause NO ONE is going to get upset by inconsequential writing...

  You're absolutely right. The time to protect free speech is when it makes you uncomfortable. When it pushes at your comfort zone, and you hover on the edge of a new thought you're afraid to voice, that's when you know you're hearing something valuable. You might learn to agree to that thought; you might learn it's antithetical to you, and learn to know your enemy; you might learn it doesn't undermine but in fact expands your own perspective in an exhilarating way.

  When dissenting protesters are herded into "free speech zones," we know we're under attack, because every public place should be a free speech zone.

I just wanted to tell you I like your posts. My husband (PhD, philosophy of religion, UVA) and I came to our individual attitudes of "theist agnosticism" from different directions (me from science, he from a call to the priesthood). We have both found different aspects of your posts to represent these complex issues well.

Thanks!