Sure it is the art piece that is being defended and not rather the freedom of artistic expression? Since art can take on many meanings and, as I said, is a matter of interpretation on the part of the viewer, it can be offensive, displeasing, provocative etc.
This is probably what falls under the censorship of a nanny state that wants to keep everything under its control and therefore censors art or encourages institutions to act as gatekeepers of what ought to be said (through art) and what ought not to be said.
I agree with you that artistic freedom should not be subject to censorship, because otherwise it is no longer art but the predictable fulfilment of certain zeitgeists and the wishes of authorities. Whether I violate the integrity of any of your followers or commenters, I leave to those who read my comment, they are surely old enough to complain themselves, should it be so and therefore probably do not need your intercession.
Apparently I have offended yours.

I have visited your blog from time to time and never found an art publication as pure material without a text. If you think that would leave the viewer uninfluenced, I won't stop you. To what extent that happens, I make no assumption. I just have asked you if you can imagine to publish your art without a frame of text.

The fact that I could miss the punk of your words, so be it, is no cardinal offence and neither is adding my own. What is the big deal? In fact, I could say, for example, that I find your art totally stupid and pointless, or that I find something great in it, and you wouldn't have to defend yourself in either case, because there's nothing to defend in that regard.

Does anyone react in a way that you perceive as negative feedback? And wouldn't that be a compliment rather than an insult, for example?