Well for one, I don't see how "innocent until proven guilty" posts should be flagged. Maybe they don't add much to the conversation, but people should be allowe

Well for one, I don't see how "innocent until proven guilty" posts should be flagged. Maybe they don't add much to the conversation, but people should be allowed to express such a simple sentiment without being flagged to death, just ignore them and move on. Flagging is equivalent to silencing someone, and I don't think we should be doing that apart from cases of obvious hate speech such as racism. Personally, I found the 37576735 comment interesting because I hadn't thought of this in the context of statue of limitations, even if it does come across a little victim blaming. And the victim blaming was called out and addressed by other comments. In general I think this is the better approach to flagging - state what you disagree and try to change minds rather than just flagging it outright. This seems like a reasonable statement to make if the author disagrees with the censorship: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37576437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37576437 And this is my comment that got flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37577525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37577525 By flagging my comment I have no idea what people dislike about it - I presume it's the anti mainstream media stance but I don't know. I'm open to having my mind changed and my thoughts challenged but that can't happen if people can no longer engage with my comment because it's flagged. Personally, I thought it added context, particularly for non-British readers, about the UK media, laws and cultural landscape and how it plays into all of this.