Recently, a host of the Gun Control Activist group posted without comment some essay about an ad campaign the NRA had started to drive up the "negatives" on Michael Bloomberg and his gun-control campaigns & ads.

No example of an ad was presented.

I thereupon requested an example be posted or linked to so that it might be analyzed. Another DU member obliged.

This member had his post "hidden" when alerted on.

This use of the jury system for censorship purposes is authoritarian and abusive. If this kind of "dynamic" is allowed to continue, intellectual inquiry and critical analysis will take a back seat to whoever can set the biggest trap. I will remind DUers, the OP broached the subject of an ad campaign without providing examples. When an example was provided by a DU member, that member was punished.

I respectfully request Krispos to weigh in on this, perhaps in consultation with the Ads, hopefully with an eye to at least firming up censorship standards to prevent members from being penalized. A list, perhaps? A consumer/viewer-type warning? Or maybe a free speech zone where material (the very subject of an OP) can be openly posted and criticized?

...and there is vast confusion. One thread says that 2A is the only constitutional right left in that town (disapproving, I guess), another asks wryly where the NRA is in all this (again, disapproving, I guess). I pointed out that the liberalization of gun laws would make the NRA's presence singularly unnecessary. Christ, these posters are all over the place.

Caught between the metaphors of a panther and a house cat.