Does not the need to produce "what arguably is the longest disclaimer intro ever for this show" denote the presence of a "N.Korea-level oppression" that hangs in the air on even the most mundane topics. This self-monitoring has gone from simply "vulgar language & threats by way of obscene jokes" to "maintaining a multi-volume library listing keywords that induce immediate removal of content". Constitution protects speech, (Common) Law has narrowed it down to sensible params, and where these fail, civil & criminal courts exist to temper excess. Odd that the FTC - often cited for overreach - has less restriction on content that literally permeates every square inch of a 15+ mile radius with zero controls to its access. I don't know of a single conversation this side of 2000 where the public-en-masse has decried radio & demanded channel controls on equipment accessible by anyone tall enough to reach it & enough $$$ to buy it. Every gate has a gatekeeper - those looking for 'best interest' do not gravitate to this role.
BTW.. ANYONE can get on radio to say anything - if only by simply calling in. A channel may sensor its content: In fact, they do impeccably well & for decades. Public access is required by law (at least was at one point in time) and while not as easy as pushing up a file, has minimal - if any - cost, without culture crashing down around it as a result.