I don't think "filter out texts that look like they might be blatant sexual puns or inappropriate for a jumbotron" is on the same level as "filter out images in a promotion of militarist culture that depict people whom the military might not want to be associated with". I doubt most people (including journalists) would have known the image was a prank if there weren't articles written about the prank after it was pointed out in a way that journalists found out about. On the other hand getting the word "penis" or a slur on the jumbotron is intentionally somewhat obvious.

I actually think the example of a porn actor being mistaken for a soldier is rather harmless (although it will offend exactly the kind of crowd that thinks a sports event randomly "honoring" military personnel is good and normal). I recall politicians being tricked into "honoring" far worse people in pranks like this just because someone constructed a sob story about them using a real picture. The problem here is that filtering out the "bad people" requires either being able to perfectly identify (i.e. already know) every single bad person or every single good person.

A reverse image search is a good gut check but if the photo itself doesn't have any exact matches you rely on facial recognition which is too unreliable. You don't want to turn down a genuine sob story because the guy just happens to look like a different person.

That's an acceptable failure. The only people who know that guy are into porn already.

If it hadn't been called out in the media, how many people would have caught onto that?

"Safe to say the Vikings social media team is going to be thinking long and hard..."

those last 3 words genuinely accidental?

I mean… that’s hardly offensive though. That’s not on the same level as a racial slur or something.