comment is free?
it wasn't especially shocking when mike dillard deleted my comments that disagreed with his marketing message disguised as analysis of #ows, but i haven't completely gotten over the guardian removing my comment about news corp's shareholders, whose internal rebellion i characterized as an infight among RWNJs similar to the "cripple fight" in a south park episode 10 years ago.

not only did the guardian's censors (whom they call "moderators") delete my first comment, but they also removed my followup explanation that the cripple fight idea came from a satirical cartoon show.

here's their justification:

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

i'm pretty sure it was "cripple fight" that earned me my fate, because the guardian's headline and subhead called rupert murdoch a "dictator" and a "tyrant," both of which are at least as strong as "RWNJ", which i'm pretty sure is the only term i used that might have been interpreted as a personal attack.

my followup must have been deleted for repeating the supposedly offending term in my attempt to defend its use.

knowledge of the reason doesn't comfort me. i hyperlinked the term "cripple fight" to its source the first time i used it and pointed out the satirical nature of its origin the second time. the guardian's censorship lacks appreciation for nuance and thus is as heavy-handed as censorship nearly always is.

comment is free, but facts are sacred.
— c p scott, guardian editor, 1921

the fact that editors oversee the censors also gives no comfort, since those editors let the following explanation find its way into a FAQ:

All moderators work closely with editors and editorial staff across the the Guardian website site....

"the the...website site"?

you call that editing?!