Censorship is more indecent than any use of profanity ever can be.
Someone has to make a reality check.
I have no idea how the parent post was rated insightful. It sounds great in theory - information wants to be free, and all that - but it's an incredible simplistic argument to make. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with restricting information access. Do you want your home address, bank details and medical records to be published? What? You don't? Well done, you support censorship!
The question we should ask is who Apple believe they can protect by censoring specific content. It's possible to hear similar language down your local pub, so it's unlikely that they're trying to protect an adult who is accessing the service. Instead, it's likely that Apple are following the recommendations of a Slashdot meme - they're thinking of the children.
At this stage in a Slashdot thread it's common for someone to chime-in by suggesting that it's the parents responsibility to prevent a child from viewing questionable content. I've noticed that Slashdotters like to blame parents for most of the ills of the world. The parent made the decision to bring a child into the world so they should shoulder the blame when a child does something bad, right? It isn't the job of a web site admin or business to baby-sit the child, etc. There's just one little snag - a parent can't place their child in a giant bubble, nor can they monitor everything that the child views on ther internet. They do their best, but there are always moments of unsupervised use - the parent has fallen asleep for 20 minutes after a long shift at work, they're cooking an evening meal, they've gone to the toilet, maybe they're trying to learn a new programming language for their job. Alternatively, maybe the parent is trying to encourage the child's interest in technology by allowing them to play with the new iPhone they just bought. Who would object to a parent trying to create the next generation of geek? Apple is a professional company and there's no harm in allowing them to scroll through the app store and pick up a few apps, is there?
Then the kid notices an unassuming RSS reader...
I know that the Slashdot collective are a clever bunch of people who can put their mind to any scenario. Imagine you're Apple (don't worry about the lack of eyes, ears, arms and legs - you're a business, not a fruit). As Apple, you know that your user community is diverse in its appeal, from young children to old people who smell of mothballs. You also know that the Internet has some seriously dodgy stuff on it and that, by providing access to third-party services through an RSS reader you are potentially allowing the aforementioned children to access the aforementioned dodgy stuff. More importantly, you have 50 more apps to review today and you know that you can be sued for making the wrong decision.
So what do you do? Do you:
 accept the app and hope that no one gets upset about it and sue you or complain to the press?
 Classify an RSS reader in an 'adult only' mode, as QuantumG suggests?
 Reject the app, minimising the risk that you are sued and/or receive bad press.
 Er... Open Box 4, phone a friend, consult the wheel of morality?
I know which choice I would make.