You ignored the actual argument, that political policy was being falsely labeled as hate speech.

I have no idea if it's true or not, but that's what you need to address if you want to discuss the nature of the deal.

> I have no idea if it's true or not

Of course it's not, it's an absurd claim. There's a very clear distinction between political argument and, well, this:

http://www.dw.com/en/pegida-founder-lutz-bachmann-found-guil...

That article doesn't say anything about Facebook deleting posts of his. And the only thing he's specifically listed as doing, calling specific groups cattle/scum/trash, well, Facebook sure doesn't seem to delete similar language in general. "It's against the rules" does not imply that enforcement is fair if enforcement is highly biased and ignores 99% of cases.

It is in large part speculation and conjecture. The evidence I thought I had doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

All the same, if you don't support the right of horrble people to say horrible things, you don't actually support free speech.