First: apologies to Anita for further consuming "bandwidth" about this.
Mike (and others):
 
I don't think any of the lists that removed RJ (at least none that i know)
did so to prevent a viewpoint from being expressed, but simply because the
behaviour of such people on the network destroy the value of that net for
it's expressed purpose. That point should be obvious...at least to anyone
that witnessed how ANTHRO-L and ARCH-L have been virtully trashed by the
same individual.  Such messages that are "filtered" did not serve to foster
discussion or debate about the pretended subject, but were disruptive to
other discourse on these nets....not simply by themselves but by the
discussions - this one included - which they engender and which are NOT
germane to the list purpose!
In some instances, it might be questionable whether one is 'filtering' a
heated discusion and thus biasing discourse, but this case is clearly not
in that category - i suspect most of us are actually quite interested
ethical issues and how cultural biases relate to them as well as to our
methods and theories.
 
I, personally, was quite saddened by how good lists were ruined, driving
away legitimate subscribers, enough so to start one of my own and i make it
clear at the beginning that posts such as RJ's will NOT be tolerated.  It
has NOTHING to do with censorship and everything with keeping the list
serving it's purpose.  In fact my university's policy mandates my not
permitting such posts. Our list-owner on HISTARCH has been amazingly
patient with us!