I'm not defending censorship, I'm defending free speach against folks who demand their speach trumps others.
my understanding was that your previous post had contradictory ideas. I don't think you ever said they don't have the right to do anything, but you implied that it was morally against free speach to moderate in the way they wanted to. In other words:
1. That SO's moderation was against the principles of free speech .
2. But the principles of free speach, as I understand them, say that part of that is the freedom to moderate speech in your private space.
3. Therefore moderation was not against the principles of free speech .
Really ,what you are saying is you don't agree with their moderation and you don't want to be there. This has nothing to do with free speech. The fact that you think it does means that you just want certain kinds of speech to trump other kinds, which is actually anti-free speech.