I think it is a mistake to believe that people don't 'get it' about how TIGHAR's forum is run and may be run according to law -
'Freedom of speech' is never a right in the corporate venue, that is not the question. Corporate censorship is frequently imposed in private venues, such as vigorously at TIGHAR, including the occasional application of damnatio memoriae to make it as if certain things never appeared. Fortunately or not, however, our modern internet has a means of rendering that particular effort moot for those who know how to use 'way back', etc.
The question is one of fairness to the representation that what TIGHAR runs here is a reasonably open forum for science-based debate, and who gets to make that decision. One supposes that is in the eye of the beholder (whether reasonably open and science-based) whereas who gets to censor is without question: emphatically, without apology, always the 'owner', whose administrators serve to the letter by all I can tell.
Chris' alluding to the U.S. Constitution doesn't tell me he believes we have an absolute right here; knowing Chris, I admire the spirit of the example which is more nearly, I believe, a pointing to an ideal we should all strive for - especially when we claim to be open.
As to whether TIGHAR's own censorship (that is what it is whenever this sort of control is imposed) is good or bad is a matter for the beholder to decide for himself: an even greater tenet of the U.S. Constitution is that we live under a body of laws that provide for freedom of choice among our corporate populace - we can take or leave an organization and any or all that it has to say.
How a corporate entity censors is also something said. The readership is what it is: if it is largely non-members, then we have little assurance that they are more than curiosity seekers.
Now I - an onlooker, will note how TIGHAR responds to this - will it be censored in part or in whole, or allowed to print as it is, for my voice to be considered as wise or folly by the onlooker? The measure of risk TIGHAR decides to take in doing so - or not doing so, tells the onlooker something of the character of the censor.
Interesting discussion, thanks Chris!