Then you can consider the even broader implications: What other content may be deemed "immoral," if we're willing to grant the ability to make that judgment to nongovernment organizations? Even if you agree that this particular image is offensive, so long as it is legal, are you willing to open that door?

Don't get caught in the "not my problem" line of thinking, either -- this model of private censorship could easily be exported to the U.S. In fact, we've already seen a taste of it. Clear Channel faced claims of shortly after 9/11, and Verizon from sending text messages over its network late last year. Verizon said the content, which focused on the issue of abortion, could be considered "controversial or unsavory."

Slippery Slope

It's a potentially slippery slope, and one reminiscent of other battles as to the appropriateness of various content. Just this month, a representative from -- a nonprofit group from Virginia -- suggesting "porn has no place in civil society."

"Somehow we've been conditioned to believe that pornography is a matter of free speech, personal freedom and privacy and that any restrictions would undo the First Amendment," the statement says.