There is a type of questions like this entry where the structure is simple enough that a question title surely covers the entire description without further explanation. Requiring question body for those questions would be redundant and would impose an unnecessary burden on users.
So what I think would be nicer is to have a checkbox, saying "Empty body" to omit the body input.
I disagree. Having a required body forces you to think about "what further detail" should I supply for this question.
We don't need more questions, we need better questions
I strongly disagree with this view. The title has an important role in questions and using it to contain (the only) content of a question is abuse of the title field and indicative of low quality in general.
The title is useful for much more than just "the first part of my question". I think in a good question the title and body should be used as outlined in the next two sub-sections.
The title in my view is your "hook", this is your one chance to entice readers; it's what the experts you hope will answer your question see mostly when scrolling through a big list of question. (It's important to search engines too). Thus I would suggest that a good title to does two things:
Make it clear to a potential reader what area your question is in.
Some of the really basic filtering is done through Tags, e.g. differentiating c# from php, so you can and should be somewhat more specific.
Make it sound interesting and make it obvious you've done basic research.
Given a choice between a harder, well written question and a corresponding poor question I think most experts (i.e. the people you hope will answer) would pick the former.
Once you've hooked someone in this is where the guts of the question lives. My expectation when reading a question is that the body is not a continuation of the title, instead it is the details and substance of the question. It should be free-standing and complete. An interesting title followed by no details in the body is almost always going to be disappointing to readers.
I don't recall ever reading a text book where the chapter/section titles are blended into the contents, or the only content. In my view in order to make your question a valuable part of a Q&A site (i.e. a useful reference for future readers) this should be the case here too.
The separation of content, presentation and structure in documents is generally seen as a good thing. The title of a question is a structural thing, the content is the body - don't blur the line between the two.
If you think you can ask a question in just the title alone then 99% of the time I think it's probably one or more of: not very interesting, not well researched or not well written. Odds are it'll attract close votes for:
"When will a computer surpass human intelligence?"
This is a discussion question, SO is not a discussion site. Its a technical/programming Q&A site. Any question actually appropriate to SO is 99.9% likely to require further details.
Think of it this way: forcing people to fill in the message body trains people in the skill of writing doco and/or requirements. In the example you provided, you should have explained why you thought it was censored. Add some context to the question, because context can be vitally important. You may know exactly what you are talking about, but you are posting questions on an international forum but you cannot be sure that anyone else knows what you are talking about.
If your question truly fits within the title, then it is probably a very simple question with a very simple answer that you probably didn't need to ask.
