Put down the crack pipe.

"what are the righs of others?"

Those outlined in your constitution, charter, what have you.

"do they include being able to live in peice which means no objectionable billboards within eyesight of their house? their tv?"

In my mind they shouldn't as what is/isn't objectionable is a very relative concept.  I find pretty pink unicorns objectionable, does that give me the right to storm around saying no one should ever be able to see, make image of, or reference to pretty pink unicorns.  Of course not and if I were to suggest I did I'm sure everyone would laugh.

"isnt all censorship done today to protect people's rights to not see that crap or to keep their children from seeing that crap?"

No.  Censorship done today is simply a means for people to enforce an out dated morality system to avoid having to deal with the reality of the modern age.  Alternatively it is a means for the overly sensitive PC crowd to avoid anyone being offended ever which to them is practically everything.  Censorship isn't and never has been about protecting people, we all choose what we do and do not watch/listen to and your billboard examples not withstanding (they are somewhat extreme you must admit), there is nothing we are forced to endure.  Censorship is about stifling creative expression in order to keep the masses in line.  And for the record this isn't some Marxist rant against big corporations or some Anarchist attack on government.  Government and business have their place and purpose, telling me what I can and cannot watch/listen to isn't one of them.

"the only way i see this is relevant is if the amount of people that are offended by censored material was tiny, while infact, it is a decent percentage of the population, so your point fails."

No, that people find my expression offensive doesn't not negate my right to that expression.  I don't know about the states but I'm fairly certain my country does not give me the right to not be offended.

"lol, please provide examples of censorship that is stifling creative expression in the modern day in a first world country?"

Any time can't or don't are applied to creative expression it has been stifled.  However you ask for examples:

Howard Stern - Left conventional radio to go to satellite because conventional radios restrictions were too confining.  He wasn't able to do the show he wanted his expression was stifled.

Family Guy Volume 7 - Includes material that the creator wanted to include but censors wouldn't allow, same as above.

Now I am by no means suggesting these are examples of noble and worthwhile expressions being restricted but if the freedom of expression was limited to what was worth expressing needless to say internet forums either wouldn't exist or be few and far between.  Heck most people wouldn't even be able to speak.

"his chin kinda looks like balls....should we censor that too"

"sigh, so your country gives you the right of expression, so if you want to express yourself through murder, the state should support you? ofcoarse not; your state should protect its citizens from harm even if that means slightly limiting self expression, and many people would interpret being exposed to certain offensive material as harm."

It's the hierarchy of rights.  My right to life is 1st followed by freedom of expression, religion, association, so on and so forth.  A person's right to life is more important than another person's right to free expression, as I said before "to the extent it does not infringe on the rights of others."  Now if material is considered to be harmful to children (children have a right to be "free from harm" at least I think they do) it can be censored under this stipulation.  However I'm of the opinion that it is our behaviour towards material, not the material itself, that is harmful to children.  In other words if we don't make a big deal out of it neither will they.