> these bans were made in bad faith

It's possible that the worst of these bans were done in strategic bad faith in partnership with the plaintiffs: to provide standing and legal cause for the plaintiffs to sue.

There may have been bans made that were reasonable but politically one-sided (perhaps an illustrated kamasutra, just to give an example), and the strategy to re-establish them was a sort of reverse motte-and-bailey -- get things that are far more innocent banned in a bid to sue and reverse all bans.

▲

rideontime 3 days ago | parent [-]

A lot of things are "possible." Do you have any evidence to support this version of events?

▲

TimTheTinker 3 days ago | parent [-]

Nothing specific. But generally, recent politics makes me believe that any "possible" version of events is an acceptable hypothesis to consider, no matter how egregious (and I mean this regardless of someone's political leaning).

Those with any form of power in very large measure (money, fame, political power, influence) ought not to be trusted implicitly.

	▲	rideontime 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		A simple "no" would have sufficed.