I think the moderators prefer not to have issues like this discussed. The goal of my post was to discuss more broadly if issues like this are something that should be discussed on HN.
Then perhaps rather than posting a raw, unadorned question with no actual value, you might write something considered and post a link to that. As it stands, Betteridge's Law of Headlines[0] suggests the answer is a simple "No".
Based on the feedback I'm aware of from moderators, posting comments specifically about the political issue of press freedom would be very much frowned upon.
I'm not suggesting posting comments, I'm suggesting writing a considered article that discusses the issue clearly, and then submitting that link. If the discussion of the link gets heated, or goes off topic, then it can be flagged and hence removed. But if what you write about it is genuinely balanced and constructive, then maybe enough people will think it does have a place.
Just my thoughts as to how you can do something that has value. The question as you posed it seems not to. And yes, discussing political things like this, especially such a hot topic as "freedom of the press", is generally marginal, and I can certainly understand why people don't want it. Personally, I wish people here could discuss things like this fully, calmly, and respectfully. It's a shame that the evidence now suggests that it can't.
> I'm suggesting writing a considered article that discusses the issue clearly, and then submitting that link.
I might try this, although it seems sort of a waste when I could just make a text post on HN like I did. I am not in the "personal branding" business or the "self promotion" business like many bloggers. In my opinion, a simple post ought to suffice and I should not have to flee to another platform simply to express an idea/question that can have comments below.
I could of course have offered some of my own analysis, but the very simple question I ask in the post is whether the topic should be discussed (at all) on HN.
While I share your lament about the quality of much political discussion, I think the root of the problem is that people feel that their political beliefs are something they are simply entitled to and that they should not have to defend or question, as if they were religious beliefs and anyone who disagreed was doing the equivalent of calling them a heathen. Suppressing political speech as being (before the fact) impolite reinforces this idea.
So I think that by asking the question of whether HN should care about press freedom we are really addressing a much bigger question, which is whether the "News" RFS and the "Improving Democracy" RFS are actually important: (https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/), and if they are, why they are important?
Would it insult anyone's sacred political religion to have this discussion? Why is YC joining the ranks of speech suppressors who consider talk about certain subjects profoundly offensive and dangerous? Does the story I censored need to be censored from YC readers? Do hopeful YC applicants need to worry about the possible consequences of posting a respectful and reasonable comment about the article?
Ironically, this conversation we are having is likely to be classified by HN mods as a flame war :)
It's somewhat marginal for HN and might not get a lot of attention/upvotes, and it's general interest enough that it might get some flags for that reason, but I wouldn't flag it (and, in fact, have upvoted the story where it was submitted on its own.)
Edit: In fact it was submitted some four hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16060448