It's a trial in which Wikipedia is one of the participants. Do people who think that this is the real censorship support allowing any participant in a trial put

It's a trial in which Wikipedia is one of the participants. Do people who think that this is the real censorship support allowing any participant in a trial put up a webpage, that the "public" is allowed to edit, whose only purpose is to comment on the trial? Do you support this in all cases? If the "public" chooses to use that webpage to attack witnesses, jurors, and judges, can it be taken down then? Must Wikipedia, as a participant in the trial, be allowed to support and moderate a page like this? It's also not a jurisdiction question. Wikipedia is free not to block the page anywhere if it is willing to be punished within India's jurisdiction for failing to do it. This thread is so bizarre. I think 80% of middle-class people are against censorship of anything they support, and for censorship of anything they don't. The other 20% take moral positions instead of narcissistic ones, but are usually intimidated into silence. These people like Wikipedia, so censoring Wikipedia in any possible circumstance, including maintaining a place to comment on an ongoing trial in which they are a participant is wrong. Censoring Elon, censoring Palestine? It's actually so right that you seem Russian for even asking about it.