So then we're making this about freedom as the central moral aspect. Then what about the freedom of the Python maintainers to post what they want? Why the selective defense?
False equivalency. The equivalent would be someone commenting saying they shouldn't publish release notes because of Reasons, and I would defend their right to publish release notes.
Your interpretation of "equivalency" is hard to understand in any context except one which seeks to limit the disagreement to an extremely narrow "debate" that just so happens to validate the ideology implied by your selective defense.
My response is to point out that your narrowing of the space of dicussion is not only noticed but acknowledged and explicitly challenged. In a conversation about morals this framing of yours is inappropriate and counterproductive. It is notable that you responded in the way you did, implying you're trying to keep this tactic subversive rather than explicitly acknowledging it. Classic move in rhetoric, to be sure.
You're acting like a smarmy high schooler who thinks they're good at reasoning because they're good at "debate".
No, it doesn't "just so happen", any more than saying "everyone should be given a fair trial" in a legal system "just so happens" to apply to the guilty and innocent.
> Clear?
Your response is entirely rhetoric, attempting to criticise me rather than my argument. It's clear how you feel; not what you think.