I’d like to hear which law you think is being broken, Rob. Not being snide. I’m sure plenty are, but can you elucidate a bit?
Regarding moderation here. I’m entirely in favour of insisting on civil discourse at all times. Name-calling, and insulting other posters should be taboo. However NO topic, and NO response to any topic, so long as civilly expressed, should be censored.
NONE whatever, ever. If censorship starts at 5F, I for one shall be leaving.
We should have absolute freedom of speech, so long as expressed with due courtesy to others here. Slagging outsiders - the arrant criminal consigliere Fauci, for example - is another matter. Clearly there are plenty of players in the present shitstorm who are serious criminals, and should be called out as such. Even so, I’d counsel that doing it with restrained language carries more weight in readers’ minds than vulgar insults. Once that’s allowed, you’re on the slippery slope that leads to the degraded behaviour still on display - and un-restrained by anyone - that’s brought the Hulk to its current condition. It’s possible to point out that another poster here is apparently advocating for behaviour for which the Nazis were condemned, without it descending into hostile and hurtful name-calling. It’s all a matter of how the language is managed, really.
I too happen to believe that advocating for the poison-stabs, knowing what we know about their effect now, strays dangerously close to nazi-atrocity territory. Considering the death and maiming toll so far, there is NO possible justification for them, especially for children. And even if there are opposing camps, with some asserting - entirely sincerely - that they are NOT harmful, and that they DO do good, the precautionary principle comes into play: zero use, outside of trials with fully-informed volunteers, until proven beyond doubt to be harmless and genuinely helpful (good luck with that! 
)
Speaking of restraint: who are MODS? And was there an election? I don’t remember.
As to what policy towards criminals is best: I always strive to advocate for - and to exemplify in my own behaviour (a difficult task!) - strict ahimsa: the buddhist concept of non-violence, harmlessness. That has to be balanced, though, with the obvious basic right to restrain criminal violence in others, and to do self-defence if attacked (like a Shaolin monk!). It’s also right, I think to advocate, and to carry out when possible, prosecution of criminals and insistence that convicted criminals must be obliged to make substantial - not merely token - amends for their crimes. You’ll know that I advocate for extensive compulsory community service for convicts; together with largescale confiscation of their ill-gotten wealth: reduction to the average ranks. And in cases of incorrigibility - Gates, for example, or Fauci again - long term, maybe lifelong, surveillance and restraint is also worth considering, until they’re finally deemed to be no longer a danger. I see no unacceptability in advocating for that. Brainless confinement in prisons, though, has always seemed to me to be an abomination.
