You see, this is the fine line between an editorial creative decision, and censorship. When a work of art is presented with certain content that others might find offensive, that's a consensual choice on the part of those who create it. When that work is crafted, and then the creators reconsider, deciding to remove certain content, or amend it, so that it might be less offensive, that's a consensual choice on the part of those who create it.
An outside party, removing or changing content against the wishes of the creator, to suit their own sensibilities, is censorship. And it is a dangerous thing.
Art should be uncomfortable - If the artist wants it to be.
Art should be easy - If the artist wants it to be.
Art should be challenging - If the artist wants it to be.
Art should suit the demands of the market - If the artist wants it to.
We should be able to write the books we want because we are willing to accept how those books will be regarded by our readers, not because we know that if they don't like something, they'll just download some app to remove the icky parts.
Readers should be able to choose what to read because they want to be challenged, because they're willing to accept that some books will push boundaries. They should be able to decide what they don't want to read, as well. And those decisions should be made based on the material agreed on by the author and their publisher. Not sanitised by an unrelated third-party.
If an author/publisher decides to release a less-profane version of their work, that's cool. There are plenty of examples of classic literature released in versions edited for younger readers. But that's the decision of the people who hold the rights to those books.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?