Yep, in fact the SA Forums entire business model was "arbitrary and capriciously" banning people so they would re-register and pay the 10bux. They had rules, but they were fungible enough so that intelligent and hilarious people wanted to see what they could get away with. Racism was strictly against the rules, but some people could post the N-word "because they are funny" (and friends with the admins).

Around 2007 or so, SA stopped being an "internet comedy forum" and started being "serious internet business" and that's when I lost interest.

Yes, capricious indeed. I paid for forum access, never posted anything, and got banned. Last visit to the site.

I remember he would run threads that were something like “comment to get banned” (or account renamed on milder days). And of course everyone including me piled on

Moderation on a private forum is a form of (free) expression.

If this is your best evidence that this guy was an advocate of unfettered free speech, that seems very nebulous and weak.

Oh sorry, I didn’t realize that we’re talking about “unfettered free speech” which doesn’t appear in the article. Yes, it is true that he did not advocate for your flavor of “freedom” (forcing private entities to host and serve any and all content that you can possibly barf up in perpetuity)

Wow so true and yet that still doesn't make Lowtax an advocate for unfettered free speech.