http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/02/06/making-fun-of-the-mpaa-hays-code/

This image couldn´t by any means portray the problem any stronger.
It totally expresses the criticism of the hypocritical boundaries of the production code in which Hollywood had to compress his productions until 1968. Especially the parodied Ten Commandments of the Bible on the board in the background relate to the conservative influence of the church. Referring to an article of the society pages, the image was passed around among photographers and publicists in Hollywood as a method of symbolic protest to the Hays Code.

But where as this picture evokes the impression of a criticism of the old days of the Production code that was abandoned in the late 1960´s, the article also mentions the present impacts of censorship on contemporary movies through the MPAA that was displacing the Code and lessened the restrictions to a certain extent.

The principles of censorship of the MPAA and who exactly made decisions seemed to be kind of mysterious for a long time. For this reason the miraclous decision standarts are subject of investigation in Kirby Dicks movie "This film is not yet rated" (2006), which tries to get an inside into the nontransparent criteria of the MPAA rating board which lead to the deviation of movies into five categories:

G (general audience)
PG (parental guidance suggested)
PG 13 (some stuff unsuitable for under 13)
R (under 17 with an adult)
NC 17 (old "X" rating, must be over 17)

A review of the film describes the crucial points introduced in the documentary:

The best part of the film is the first one [...]I, mainly because we get to know the rules of the game a bit better. Apparently, any kind of "weird sex" is not welcome: oral sex (`Boys Don't Cry`), threesomes(`The Dreamers`, `American Psycho`), gay stuff (`Mysterious Skin`, `Where The Truth Lies`), female masturbation (`Jersey Girl`, a PG-13 movie, almost got an R just because Liv Tyler talks about it)... the list is quite long. Of course, you're better off if your film is endorsed by a major studio. That's why a glimpse of Maria Bello's pubic hair got independent film `The Cooler` an NC-17, while Sharon Stone doing much more in the audience-baiting `Basic Instinct` was "appropriate" enough to receive an R. No wonder most filmmakers hate the MPAA! Hell, we even find out that Trey Parker and Matt Stone deliberately put distasteful material in Team America just to make fun of the ratings board.

The censorship nowadays isn´t criticized mainly for its tabooing of specific subjects like it was back in the days of the production code that actually prohibited movie releases, it´s more about the doubtful classification in the U.S. that is more liberal when special economical interests are in focus and that seems to accept pictures of violence more than pictures of sex.

An actual example of the debate is the comparison of classification of "Black Swan" and "Blue Valentine". Cristy Puchto writes in her article for the film stage: ‘Black Swan’ Vs. ‘Blue Valentine’ – MPAA’s Dark Secret

Simply put Black Swan is drawing comparisons to Blue Valentine because both involve a scene where oral sex is preformed on a woman – but while the former got an R rating, the latter received the dreaded (and box office killing) NC-17 rating. As the Weinstein Company has pointed out in their press release, the MPAA has a clear double standard when it comes to violence and sex in their ratings, noting films that deal with violence against women or rape have often garnered an R while movies involving woman’s ardent pleasure are branded with NC-17. Susman furthers this disparity argument drawing comparisons between the films’ supposedly scandalous scenes.