Although I disagree with Mad Man’s position, I believe that he “won” the challenge for a very specific reason.
Mad Man pointed out that yes Carleas has biases, but obviously he does not “care” enough about the ads to take concern to them and “ban” them. For example, Mad Man says that some of the ads are blatantly false, propaganda, and most importantly, that they are harmful–he is right. However, Carleas does not ban them, because they are subconsciously “not harmful enough” to warrant his attention. If in fact there were ads promoting Nazism (or hell, Terrorism), then I am 100% confident that Carleas would pay special attention to such a thing. But, he doesn’t pay attention to these ads that Mad Man has claimed are “harmful”.
Because Carleas did not address this point sufficiently, I feel that he has lost the challenge. Since everybody censors things to a degree, then which ads should be allowed? That decision rests on Carleas, yet he has avoided the issue as to why exactly he shouldn’t ban these particular ads. It is not so much about the virtue of free speech, the argument rests on “why shouldn’t Carleas ban these particular ads”. And with the challenge complete, why shouldn’t he ban these ads? It is because he is paid to keep them, which keeps ILP running. This could be seen as another virtue, which has not been touched upon in the challenge…
In the end, because Carleas avoided making the case as to which ads should stay and why (assuming he would allow a pro-Nazism/Terrorist ad if it paid the fee), I see that he has “lost” this one.
(Just my $.02)