When the Smithsonian recently yanked a painting of Christ covered with ants the painting's admirers complained that art shouldn't be held hostage to those it might offend. The purpose of art, we're told is precisely to make us uncomfortable, to offend the orthodoxies which imprison our minds, etc., etc. Those who were upset by this painting and others like it have been derided and disparaged as a bunch of unsophisticated Yahoos.
Now, however, Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is being scrubbed of the words "nigger" and "injun" and many, though not all, of the voices who are outrgaed at censorship of literature and thrilled whenever art is used to offend the sensibilities of the hoi polloi, have suddenly gone silent.
Liberals have told us for decades that we shouldn't be afraid of words, at least that's what they said when people objected to the fact that words many consider vulgar and offensive began to fill our movies and novels. They told us that this was simply an accurate reflection of how people talk, a true depiction of life. It's the reality of modern life, and the role of art and literature is, among other things, to represent reality.
Nevertheless, it's now been decided that there really are some words too offensive for people to read and these must be expurgated from our literature. I guess whether a word is too offensive for the printed page actually depends on who is offended by it.