See last updates for SF MoMA response and others' reactions.
See very last updates for:

More proof that this is not a fluke, not a "Hawk" or "Blint" issue, but a disturbing national trend that should transcend partisan politics in my opinion.

Mr. Hawk recounted the events of Friday, August 8, 2008 on his blog.

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA's decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.
...
After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint...

FriendFeed had three very impassioned conversations:

1. Thomas Hawk's FriendFeed discussion

2. Jeremiah Owyang's FriendFeed discussion

Thomas Hawk's skewering of Simon Blint: Thomas is a community leader (and photo site CEO) he needs to wield his power with responsibility. Tagging Simon Blint and "*sshole" has damaged his online reputation for years on end, and will likely impact job screenings.

3. Cyndy's FriendFeed discussion

When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

SFist covered the incident (thanks, Brock!)

...Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs." Hawk goes on to say, "I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash."

Was Blint, in fact, being an *sshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don't know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.

But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?

BoingBoing didn't miss the story.

Robbo sez, "Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that? Why? Taking photos in the atrium. SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum...

Consumerist covered it as well.

Despite What Their Website Says, Taking Pictures In San Francisco's Museum Of Modern Art Is Cause For Ejection

The Guardian covered it. Oh dear, it crossed the pond. Unexpected, to say the least.

The power of the Hawk is a problem for SF-MoMA
Throwing the esteemed Thomas Hawk out on his ear is not the way to win friends and influence people 

It was the top story on Digg.com on Saturday.

Takeaways (not done yet, in progress, subject to change)

• SF MoMA is apparently clarifying its policies, not re-banning photography (add links)
• Mistakes were made: Hawk & Blint (links)
• Blog & "web2.0" commentators are opinionated (links)
• Blog commentators are lazy (links)
• You can't win: online activism is ineffectual, or a mob (links)
• Character assassins often don't disclose personal motivations (profit motives)
• Allegations of pseudonyms being a cowardly shield, easily falsifiable here (links)
• Allegations of perversity, child abuse and privacy violations still pervade
• Even the least noisy conversations have a very wide difference of opinon (friendfeed links)
• Pervasive tendency is subjectivity, not objectivity; big picture reduced to a thousand tiny icons
• Definitions of public v. private space, rights and violations, still an issue
• If Photography is a privacy violation, why is there wide acceptance of surveillance cameras?

Some of my comments are gathered here:

Disclaimer:
I've concluded that I was confused as to whether "galleries" includes the permanent collection, or refers to the "special exhibits." My initial impression was that the change in policy would allow for photography of the stuff that's owned outright by the SF MoMA. Apologies for any confusion, and perhaps this would be a point of clarification, i.e. if photography of any "exhibited" piece is disallowed, say so. Perhaps discuss stairs, hallways, elevated walkways, etc., as these are not "galleries," may not be part of the "atrium" and yet provide unique vantage points from which to take photos (of the architecture.)

FYI, even though I understand it's not a Thomas v. Simon issue: an anonymous commenter claims to have worked with Simon before: "I worked with this douche at ZEUM one block down from SF MoMA. I can attest to his short temper and general lack of people skills. He found no trouble in bullying the teens who worked there."

"Director of visitor relations" is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation. Since it's a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR. He'll probably have a "rich learning experience" though.

dianachen and ScribeGuy, I'm glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident. It's too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn't spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say. I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren't finding the best conversations.

RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection, atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a hand held point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash? Go ahead, rant some more, it's entertaining.

UPDATE: William Safire, On Language: Bleeping Expletives (New York Times Magazine December 31 2008)
 

WTF? srsly, the spell-correction for "kerfuffel" is "motherf***er" not
"kerfuffle"... minutes ago

I think the situation is pretty Fup ... Duck ... agree! -ed.

An observation, a few assertions: and then five rules.

At issue here is not existence or prevalence or specific uses of bad words that mean bad things.
I assume here you wish to offend, surprise, shock, and do so intentionally. I also assume you know about the seven broadcast illegal words, racial epithets, "hate speech" and even speech that intends to incite a mob to do violence.

This serves as a reminder that using such speech unnecessarily and thoughtlessly will get you judged by some, filtered out by others, and labeled a Knave and a Blackguard by your local Lordship or Community Board or Homeowner's association. Is your lazy f-bomb really necessary? Are you sure it won't turn around later and bite you on the posterior?

A dire situation in U.S. law arises when one of seven unspeakables are broadcast during non-late-night programming. Fines may add up to hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars, and still may not include a broadcaster's fine.

See George Carlin's famous routine "The Seven Words" on YouTube (explicit language, of course)

So, while we bring our shameful and Puritanical tendencies into the 21st century, remember:

• 1) Just because you can use bad language, racial epithets, expletives, does not mean you should. Supporting evidence: lack of UK or Canadian "obscenity law" as we have; lack of expletives in BBC, CBC; Lack of their desire to follow our shining example in making "sounds representing words representing offensive concepts" a soundcrime (but not a spelledwordcrime.) These are quite different from a more personal kind of offense such as defamation, slander or libel, which isn't about the language per se being offensive, but is damaging an individual or group. Scandal rags, busybodies, gossips, bloggers, character assassins, trash talkers - may exceed their right to speak freely and lose the protection of old man Bill... O'Rights.
• 2) Inability to refer to or use offensive or bad language without creating a problem for someone else implies a lack of education or imagination. "...defecate, fornicate, micturate!" (translation left as an exercise for the reader). The Irish version of "s***" - is shite which you will notice is just an S-bomb with an "e".  Also popular in Ireland is feckin'. "F-bomb" and "S-bomb" are good terms for specific expletives. "Fudge" and "Sugar" to quote my Grandmama Della.
• 3) Penis penis penis. Refer to South Park on Comedy Central. Adults skeptical of the value of this show have to wade in way past the F-bombs and S-bombs to get at some valuable ideas. Almost all medical terms for body parts are completely OK. (At least for now.... until Science is classified as offensive by puritanical clerics). If you actually find a justification to say "penis penis penis" perhaps an award is in your future. Perhaps not.
• 4) "N-word", once again, is OFF LIMITS to HONKIES who don't have STREET CRED with the AUDIENCE at the venue.  Very nearly the only way to do this right is to insult all parties ad nauseum, including the speaker or author, and not just echo or establish pejorative stereotypes that can encourage racism and intolerance. Example Asian Drivers. At its most innocent it's a nonsequitur fallacy; the issue is Anyone who is a Citizen who decides or wants to Learn To Drive at an Advanced Age with optional Language Barriers. Asian rebel teens drive just as well as American rebel teens. The humor of Carlos Mencia is sacrificed on the altar he constructs to honor this error. His comedy is stereotyped, revelation-free, and his signature "deet-dee-dee" running gag is an example of the straw man fallacy. By mocking really stupid behavior and getting you to laugh at it, you both can feel like "f***ing geniuses" by comparison.
  More importantly much of his (better) material is not "borrowed" but "stolen" in the worst way; this is proven by his response to the allegation Joe Rogan made on stage. One more thing: Even if you think all you have to do is engage in some quick self-stereotyping, Mr. Beaner, you're wrong. There, I said it.
  
• 5) Acronyms "WTF" or phonetics and unspellings "s**t"  are appropriate if the equivalent written or spoken form is also O.K. Watch out for phonetic forms, pity the poor radio people! Vietnamese family at health clinic with Aunt Linda, "...Mrs. Yu  asked, "you want I get my son Fuk?"" Also a problem.... "gung hey phat choy phuc." Very easy to screw up.

Help preserve our Cultural Epithets and Expletives, but not the censorship laws enforced in the courts. If the epithets are lost, or devalued, they become useless. Your right to offend with intent to offend is lessened.

Imagine having to make up a bunch of new Shakespearian Insults to hurl at that Arthritic Excuse for a Not Even Fair Weather Friend of yours. Now do that in 8 languages. Now do those in street slang (Modern Urban Vernacular) by location. You are [expletive-adverb elided] crazy to want this; I say keep the expletives underused and offensive, but remove the bureaucratic mechanisms to defend society from soundcrimes and spelledwordcrimes. Forum and context and other writing and rhetorical rules apply. That's all that applies. What do you mean, you improperly Christened serf? Say it clearly.

Define offensive language and talk about offense in words on paper or spoken or signed in your  languages and more. Over the internet, automatically translated to a dead language and back. How do you say "f***" in Euskadi? in Latin? or is it "f***" with a noun? Is a meaning of "f***" personal nonsexual or sexually offensive? without the noun? I'm curious to know what we would use for "f***" if it were no longer functional as expletive? f*** or word-meaning-f***? Or abstract offensive concept equivalent-to-f***?

What about when an expletive needs translation  away from or towards religion? "I defecate on the host" is a very common offensive exclamation in Spain not technically offensive in English. Here the "meaning" of the insult is lost when semantically broken up and properly translated... it lacks the description [common-expletive accepted-usage offensive-esp-to-catholics not-a-literal-description]

Usage of "%^@$*" (from comics) is offensive by lookslike-euphemismfor-expletive, whether or not you mean to use whitewashed offensive language; euphemisms are stand-ins for expletives. My teacher assumed I was using cynical-intenttooffend-bywayof-euphemism; I really had no idea what all the punctuation was about. Srsly. I was like eight years old!

Of course I followed rules on public scope and guidelines on offensive language; appropriate for all ages; the topic of bad language doesn't require such. Spoken form should substitute "f***" with "f-word" etc. watch out for anything that soundslike-expletive; spell it out letter by letter when nothing else will do. You silly "gee eye tee."

that's enough for the premiere Emily Blog Post!

(c) all rights reserved by Richard Walker in case I decide to do something commercial with this one

NOTYET:

• Jeebus Phishing - Identity and Anonymity - Commentary - Traffic and Metrics -
• Forums and Communities (cite the Guardienne du Sanctuaire issue)
• Memes Themes and Net Trendiness: LOLcats pwnage twitter etc.
• Trolls Sluts and Whores link slut; eyeball whore; forum trolls;
• Hackers Crackers and 13375 black hats, attackers, elite speak;
• Spam Spam Bacon Spam and Spam (except in Hawaii for Breakfast)
• Eggs Beans and Crumpets
• Smileys Emoticons, Sarcasticons, Smileys
• Keywords Tags and Adsense safe s e x mascot; use and misuse of tags; jeebus singles 4 u
• Racial Epithetiquette