Its the forum's version of a restraining order. If people feel threatened/harassed by a member, they can make a local rule stating that they don't want them in any of their threads. Censorship means that you have no voice and no outlet. Its not censorship to tell people to get out of your house (your thread). You are free to make another topic elsewhere. No one here has the right to make other members feel not welcome here. Obviously, this is a shared space, so ignoring people is a tool for casually running into a member you have a problem with around, but ignoring is not the solution for when someone follows you around, thats where local rules come in.
This isn't something that gets a debate. The forum in general does not care if it hurts your feelings to not be able to break its rules. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you, or if you think its fair, the rules are the rules. Meta isn't special, its a section about the forum itself, not about your relationships with others. The reason moderation rules are a little more lax in Meta is because its supposed to be a place where users can criticize the forum itself, and obviously, having a heavy handed moderation policy in place in a section meant for criticism looks shady. That does not give you any special permissions in the Meta sections. If your facts are unwanted by the OP of a thread, as dictated in the local rules, then your facts are not welcome.
You can make any argument if you'd like, but as I said, it really doesn't matter. I don't care to force you to believe me, but with this you should have complete knowledge of the rule, why it exists, and why it applies to you. Whether you agree or not. I'll point to this thread when you are banned and trying to say it was unjust, and how blindsided you were by the unfair moderator action.
This is word salad that does not provide anything new to what has been stated already and is merely another long winded ad hominem attack.
The post needs to be judged on its own merits. This has nothing to do with the poster.
If you allow only factual, relevant and ontopic posts then this kind of ad hominem defense is broken.
Moderating factual relevant and on topic posts does indeed look very shady. Hence why it can not be allowed to happen ever.
The fact that a huge proportion of posts are baseless incorrect and misleading opinions are the real danger. Your notion of preventing facts being censored so that those incorrect and misleading statements and ideas can prevail is utterly ludicrous in a sub board like meta.
It is quite simple that if you rely on FACTUAL RELEVANT AND OBSERVABLY CORRECT information only and this information on its own merits makes people feel unwanted then of course they must feel that reveals something about them that is to be considered undesirable once such relevant facts are analysed.
Your entire reasoning seems bogus and quite nonsensical like with the lemons thing. You need to have your opinions critically analysed like any other person. This is nothing personal against you but I feel your opinion on this is wrong and totally illogical if you are interested in the truth or optimal solutions/outcomes being presented.
You of course can have your opinion but that does not make it logical nor beneficial to the forum on the whole.
Sorry I do not share your view and you have not presented any kind of sensible case as a rebuttal.
Simply saying you think it should be a certain way without presenting a case for why is again unsubstantiated and actually misleading.
I say again provide me with a sensible case as to why any facts based on topic and relevant information should be censored from any threads in meta.