[thaumasiotes]

>> Banning opinions for “things that are illegal” would ban everything from discussion about drug legalization to same sex marriage.

> This is a glaringly bad faith interpretation of my post. You know what I meant - an op-ed featuring say a pro-pedophilia stance should not be published in a national media.

I'm really curious how you're distinguishing pro-pedophilia op-eds from pro-same-sex-marriage op-eds. Is it just that one is bad and one is good? How do you know which is which?

[cozuya]

Curious, why should a private company be forced to post op-eds from viewpoints that their editorial board has decided are against their editorial guidelines?

What other things should the government force a private company or that matter a citizen to say or not say?

[cozuya]

VERY QURIOUS that there was no response to this Just Asqing Questions QUERY.

[dang]

It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're battling for or against, because it's not what this site is for. Moreover it destroys what it is for, so we have little choice if we want HN to survive for its intended purpose.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules from now on, we'd be grateful. I'm not banning your account because you fortunately haven't been using HN exclusively for political/ideological flames. But you're far on the wrong side of the "primarily" line: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....