I skimmed the thread and I have to say we need to "feed" a good topic like this. The poor thing is starving.
Simple rule of thumb for me on the freedom of speech.
"Anything goes unless it infringes on the constitutional rights of another person"
Note: by Constitutional rights I mean the rights given to us by the founding fathers with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
The problem with "restricting" rights is who gets to decide? You? Me? Obama? Bush? Palin? Beginning to see my point? Currently, the freedom of speech is already under assault. From bills like the "fairness doctrine" that in the past restricted the freedom of conservatives and Liberal radio personnel to express their opinions (You can claim Obama doesn't suppose the fairness doctrine but, he'll just Cloak & Dagger it in under a different name, mark my words). To the general attitudes in the political world. I'm all for people burning the Israeli flag on college campuses in California but, they shouldn't scream bloody murder when the Palestinian flag is also burned by counter-protesters.
As for art; if a painting of the virgin mary smeared in elephant dung can be called "art" and is protected, then my drawings of loli should be as well.
About the prostitute; Dude, I don't see anything anywhere that says that you have a right to keep people from knowing that your Johnson was in a hookers mouth. That would be censorship and what do we say to censorship?

I'll just close with this which really contributes nothing to the argument but, highlights my views very well.
Noam Chompsky wrote...
If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.