Agentorange;
I take your point and indeed it might well be true, but there must be consistency. For example, many of the posts here, those made by slavering extremists I might add, condone mass murder and genocide. Some are removed, others aren't, depending upon who reads the complaints, I guess. Under European law, I believe, it is illegal to advocate genocide.

So, one assumes that the site complies with American law and that advocating mass murder and genocide is acceptable, and it is OK to call for the nuking of Iran and the death of all Palestinians. However, inconsistencies then arise. For example, during the period when I was personally pursued by anti-Palestinian members, and at least one moderator, for my 'crimes' of taking the Palestinian position, I was repeatedly slandered by being called an 'anti-Semite'. Complaints about this led to the pronouncement, at Administrator level, that the site operated according to its own rules, not subject to external law, and was , in effect, a 'closed environment' and slander was acceptable. Such slander could be posted if it was simply the posters belief. No proof was necessary. This is a matter of record. I accepted that and I learned how to deal with slandering trash in my own way.

Thus being pursued for , alleged , tax law violations did smack of a certain inconsistency. Dare I say 'hypocrisy' ? I'd be very disappointed to learn that I'd been misled.

So, my take is that if a post offends a member's sense of decency then that member should complain. If the complaint is not upheld then that member should derail and discredit that poster if he/she is able. That's politics. This is a political site. Censorship stinks.