That's... long.

Quote:In this instance, I believe there is clear evidence that the defendant suppressed the post for the purposes of moderation rather than personal gain, as the complainant acted in a manner that suggested their posts were not serious and credible. The evidence does not support the claim that the defendant suppressed the post because the complainant disagreed with the defendant.

The post (I believe you mean this one) wasn't suppressed for the purpose of moderation, as there was nothing illegal about it. That being for the purpose of moderation would basically be the equivalent of being arrested for murder when all you did was lightly slap somebody. I was not acting in a manner that my posts weren't serious. I tend to be quite serious about RMB related topics due to the fact that a lot of my time is spent on the RMB. Also, that's blatantly obvious why: because I'm disagreeing with them. Why else do you think he would've suppressed it? Because it's an argument? Well, probably not, but if it was because of that then they would also have to suppress / delete their own posts, and if they suppressed mine but did nothing to theirs then it would still be my point that they're suppressing what they disagree with. More evidence to support that it's because of disagreement is this post, where Slab describes themselves as a dictator, or actually "playing dictator". Obviously, a dictatorship is very different from democracy, in the way that disagreeing with the dictator (or expressing it) wouldn't be tolerated. Basically, they're admitting to it.