Sorry for mistakenly identifying you as a mod.
This is a list of what is I see could be moderated:
Our trusty moderators may remove anything that is:
Tragically misspelled – Not everyone’s first language is English, and then not everyone paid attention in school. If someone doesn’t want to wade through and decipher, then they will ignore it. I don’t see the call in deleting.
Totally open-ended or poorly thought out – I can see this, if it doesn’t have to do with the question asked, then the purpose of the site is to answer questions, moderate away.
Trolling (or thinly masked propaganda)- Here we start stepping on thin ice and it is a moderator’s call (although some cases are obvious) as to whether something is a troll or a legitimate question or misunderstanding. Moderating propaganda, however is clearly stepping on free speech.
Self-promotional (No peddling, promos, or marketing)- A site rule, understandable, but still, you are stepping on freedom of speech, so my opinion of this not being a free speech site stands.
Egocentric attention-grabbing- A definite judgement call by the mods. Not everyone is going to think alike, so what may be attention grabbing to some, might not be to others. So you might get freedom of speech according to the mods, not a free speech domain.
Hateful, abusive, or bigoted- I answered a question in which I saw the words ‘Filipino infested’. I took offense and I found it abusive and bigoted, but the post remains- AS IT SHOULD. I will put that in the win column for the mods who left it.
Deceitful- I can understand this, this is supposed to be a site where you find answers. It does not help if someone is out and out lying in their response.
Vague, confusing, or generally non-sensical- another judgment call. What may be vague and confusing to some may not be to others and it might actually be a help, but if the mods have the power to remove it, they are interrupting freedom of speech and I don’t buy your argument that ‘cleaning’ up someone’s speech aids freedom of speech. Non-sensical, I can see that, sort of goes with deceitful.
A personal attack- Tough. Toughen up and ignore them. If no threats are being made, I find this a clear violation of freedom of speech. Again, your argument of censoring and or having people speak in a different manner so that free speech CAN occur does not hold water with me.
Off-topic chatter or an inside joke- I can see not allowing off topic answers per the rules of the site but that and inside jokes is a matter of free speech. People can pass over them if they want, so again your argument does not hold water.
Excessive txtspeak (“ZOMG r u 4 real?!?!?!!? LOL”)- Would a person who spoke or wrote in Ebonics? Just asking.
We would argue semantics endlessly as I do not agree with your argument, it only strengthens mine as my argument probably only strengthens your convictions.