Not at all. You could argue that by moderating you are taking away free speech, but even that argument is flawed in many ways.

It seems people have been giving bad ratings to answers they don't like. You should only give a bad rating if the answer is random or useless.

Ummm.....No.

By that time, a person has already said what they wanted to.

No. If negative points were not available then it would be taking our right to petition.

Yes! If you know something will get you negged, you wont ask it!

No. Giving negative points doesn't stop anyone from voicing their opinions, which is what taking away freedom of speech means. It's basically like telling someone they suck after they tell you their belief or opinion or something, but you can't stop them from saying it. They won't get arrested for it, they won't be penalized or executed, or whatever. They can go and say it again and again. Some people may be afraid to get bad rep for asking or answering a certain question and therefore decide not to ask it, but that's a choice they're making. Nobody is forcing them not to ask or answer. Interesting about moderation and deleting messages though. That's different, and does indeed defy the rights we have on freedom of speech. Granted, flaming and trolling are immature and unintelligent, but it's still what someone wants to do. It's not like it's considered physical violence, and a lot of things are verbally allowed which can hurt a lot more than ''yoo stoopidz biznatch''. However way you look at it, even if moderation is practiced in the name of censorship or morality or ethics, it's still denying freedom of speech because you're not allowing the person to state what they want to, even if it is immature or lacks common sense. The subjectivity and many different branching aspects of ''freedom of speech'' allows for a lot of masking and false interpretations if you ask me. It's like the offline world. Freedom of speech is often given the form of various forms of art. that's also quite subjective, but it's still thoughts and opinions given physical shape, which should always be allowed. Better to let a man write stories about murder then denying him this and having him go and do it for real. But it's really not all that bad. I'd rather take the time to listen to a Nazi explain to me why he believes what he does then listen to someone insulting me for saying this. Note. I've left out a lot of this message for fear of being derepped.

No.When I give negatives, I don't give them without a reason.Like in this one(for the 3rd answer) http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/631373