> these Elect

Again, a statement dripping with derision, that is actually just sticking up for the rights of assholes.

> how do they get to decide who's an asshole

Peddling a message harmful to others.

> what is the procedure for the rest of us to appeal

"appeal" is for crooks, not wankers being thrown out of the pub

That's your opinion, that I'm sticking up for the rights of assholes. And by the way, I'm not surprised that someone who favors censorship and calls out wankers, would also interpret for someone else what they believe, before they said anything. But I'll say it now: the argument against censorship isn't a defense of assholes and wankers (and people you don't like), it's an appeal for the very historical, empirically shown problem with censorship that it's hard to have an unbiased, fair and accountable body of censors. Thus, you inevitably end up with good ideas that get thrown out with the bad, if you take a generous argument, and if you want to be cynical about it, you get critical ideas thrown out when they don't match mainstream narrative. This latter matters only little now, but during wartime or times of strife, boy does it matter.

Your name-calling should be enough for people to raise their eyebrows at the question: who decides what gets censored.

Since there's no censorship occurring, this foaming-mouthed rant is simply more of the same.

Tip for idiots thrown out of pubs: yelling at the bouncers isn't going to get your name off the landlord's shit-list, and you don't have a right to make everyone listen to your drivel.