This isn’t editorialized, the change log literally shows the hate speech rule was removed. They didn’t replace it, they didn’t codify what classifies as hate speech at a different point. They removed it. You can argue on whether or not it’s a good or bad thing, but the rule _was_ removed.

"Freenode removes rule about media trading, game modding, warez, porn, antisocial behavior, and hate speech" would've been fine. From the HN guidelines: Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

Frankly it also comes close to running afoul of the off-topic rule regarding politics.

Political content is allowed, if relevant to HN topics. The guidelines just say "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" meaning that most stories about general politics are off topic, which is common sense.

Editorializing means adding your own commentary beyond the facts. In this case, there is no commentary added to the fact that Freenode removed the hate speech rule.

Posting comments for the mods is often ineffective. If you wish the mods to see and respond to your concern, email your proposed replacement title to the mod’s using the Contact link in the site footer.

The comment is relevant for readers, too. It's an opinion about the article, of which the headline is a part.

It is an opinion about the manner in which the article was posted.

Would you consider an opinion about the manner in which the article was posted to be off-topic for a discussion about the article itself?