In onland law, this is a silly question that is addressed in many ways. But online law is a bit different.
A man publishes a web blog advertising his full name and a theme of which he is apparently proud. He then becomes a member on this and other forums wherein he uses the same first name and for years proselytizes his theme. How often he has linked to his own blog site is unknown, but would be expected to be reasonably high.
After years, he chooses that one particular man is “an enemy” to be attacked. In that vein, he starts a threat on this forum as a platform for his attack. For a short while, he actually addresses something relating to philosophy, but very quickly it becomes nothing but conspicuous personal attacks, such as “you are the greatest of all liars” and “the epitome of evil”, providing no sort of philosophically related evidence whatsoever for the accusations. Such ranting goes on for pages.
Eventually at one point, the person being attacked mentions that blog of the attacker wherein his full name is advertised, revealing the attacker’s full name. This is then promoted by the attacker (and his cohorts) as a “threat to privacy”, even though accessible to anyone who has bothered to merely look up the theme involved in the attacker’s years of preaching.
Due only to the reaction, one can assume that the attacker wanted to hide something that he had already revealed himself or perhaps merely wanted to inspire the “poor victim” response from authorities. In either case, it would appear that mischievousness is what is at hand. But in either case, the question arises as to whether linking to an obsessive attacker’s published works is in fact an inappropriate response to an attack, personal or otherwise.
The thread involved, although now edited by moderators, is this, most notably the last couple of pages. It has been proposed that such an “offense” is certainly a ban-able offense, even worse than the actual, very real death threats given on other threads and forgiven.
There appears to be a huge, huge inconsistency in moderating that has caused serious damage to this site. This appears to be another of those polarizing, “Us vs Them/Him” reactions from moderators who have no standard to which members can willingly conform and thus threaten banning to anyone whispered as “a bad guy” while totally ignoring and forgiving extreme violation to normative civil standards and published “rules of behavior” for presumed “friends” - a totally political, non-philosophical issue.
Thus it seems that site-admin preferences concerning banning due to unreasonable violations would be in order for this site to have anything at all to do with philosophy rather than merely political bigotry and propagandizing.