I'm with Simetrical on this one. One persons censorship is anothers editorial decision, and by and large[1] the actual content on Wikimedia projects is determined by the cultural sensitivities of the Wikimedia community and not the ideals to which we aspire. The arguments we make are by turns pragmatic, emotional, ontological, and philosophical... but ultimately, if most Wikimedians are offended by a beheading video but not by a pearl necklace then we will exclude the one but not the other.
Examples of this can be found regularly on discussion boards at the English Wikipedia, where userpage nudity used in a derisive political comment is much more easily accepted than gratuitous sexual wallpaper. Similarly we allow userboxes against atheism, for atheism, for the Confederate army, against the Catholic Church... userboxes that mock the physical features of George Bush, others that practically deify him. But we've rejected anti-Obama userboxes, pro-Hamas/Hezbollah userboxes, userboxes with swastikas (even outside the Nazi context) and many others. One user even failed to become an administrator because of a userbox that described him as a "Grammar Nazi" with a swastika. If you can divine a consistent "not censored" ideaology from this track record, you're a more careful observer than I am.
Nathan
1. By and large (and at large) is a nautical term. Who knew.