LootHunter: No, I do not. Again, my opinion is that games should be banned based on clear and reasonable criteria. If you are unable to set such criteria then NO games should be banned.
HappyPunkPotato: So games that meet the criteria should be banned and those that don't shouldn't i.e. some games should be banned.
No games should be banned if no criteria can be set. Can criteria be set? Yes? No? Maybe? Probably? I think probably which leads to "probably some". Since you said "No, I do not" think some games should be banned am I to assume that you think no criteria can be set? This quote made me believe you think criteria can be set:
"In itself, censorship isn't unilaterally a bad thing. Sometimes it's necessary, as you've rightfully pointed out that you can't sell everything everywhere or show any content to everyone. And some things indeed need to be restricted."
Yeah. And that's why, as I've said, everyone should put extra effort to be accurate and clear. I've tried to avoid ambiguity with the word "some" and still got into what seems to be a contradiction because I wasn't thorough enough with my explanations.
Actually, my position, in general, is that no games should be banned. Not completely, anyway. People should have the right to access any information. Except if it's someone else's private information, or maybe government top-secret data. If a game contains such private data, I understand why it can be banned. I also understand (though not entirely agree) when a game is banned because it calls for violence or other activity against the law. I mean, if it's illegal to break the law then it probably should be illegal to incite breaking the law.
Those are only two exceptions. Any other game should be available for people, who wish to play it. As long as these people know, what they are doing - here is where my opinion about "restrictions" comes into play. Children shouldn't be allowed access to content that they can't process properly. Just like people with mental problems, who can be influenced by the game and do something that can cause harm to them and others. But if you are a mentally capable adult, and a game has all the warnings about its content attached - it can be assumed that you know what you doing and thus should be allowed to play.
With online (and physical) game stores it's more complicated, as they are private businesses. And it's a very complex topic, what business decisions are their private matter and what decisions are meant to be regulated by the law and government. However, I do think that "clear and reasonable criteria" should be applied here in any case - after all, if a store sets the rules, customers at least should have a right to know what those rules are.
If we talk about GOG specifically, it has a DRM-free principle declared. And it's one of its advertising points. Thus it's reasonable not to accept games with DRM. And it's also reasonable not to accept games that aren't working properly (not finished, for example), as customers buy games to play them (in general).
However, at no point, GOG advertised itself as a kid-friendly, or porn-free, or anime-free store. So, there is no reason for it to ban games due to pornographic or anime content. And people, who don't like porn or anime can simply not buy those games. With an appropriate filter, they wouldn't even know those are there.
So, that's essentially my position on the topic. Do you see any contradictions?