Foreign governments deciding they don't want to allow a potential rapist and rape-enabler is NOT censorship. It is protecting OUR citizens from a self-proclaimed psychopath. Or terrorist, by some of the US-sponsored definitions floating around.
So far everyone is missing an important link to copyright - when does an element become small enough not to be protected any more? Given the elaborate nature of the original ceremony, and the limitations of who is able to actually participate in it (and where), it would be extremely hard to try to 'copyright' a tiny derivative of it that is a 'simple' body movement. Kind of like trying to limit anyone using the character 'shin'.
It really, really pains me to say this, but one of the successes of the UK's 'Daily Fail' (Daily Mail) as a website is that it has a robust commenting system. Not only does it allow upvotes and downvotes (without registration), but you can sort by newest/oldest, and most originally, by best-rated and worst-rated.
It says a lot to me that so many anti-social opinion pieces and 'news' providers fail to provide even simple commenting. Whether a site allows comments or not definitely influences my desire to stay on a site or not.
Additionally, forcing people via Facebook or whatever is also a problem because it's one problem if you don't want an account there - it's another if you can't actually get on (for instance, from work or somewhere with other restrictions).