I used to provide in my answers about contract law a link to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts that some law firm posted on its website. The law firm subsequently removed that resource, thereby causing the equivalent of broken link in my answers. To prevent that from happening again, the link to the Restatement I provide when answering on LawSE is from my blog.

But some people on LawSE keep devising new forms of censorship and of political correctness. Now one of the moderators keeps editing this accepted answer for the sake of removing the link I provide. The answer already had ten or more upvotes (and one or zero downvotes) by the time the moderator edited it for the first time. The moderator's link does not even display the entirety of the Restatement. His insistence inconveniences those from the audience who might wish to read more from the Restatement without the hassle of repeatedly clicking on a fragmented version.

The moderator's pretext that "The proposed link is problematic for reasons discussed on Meta, among others" is too vague and likely made up. First, it is unclear where exactly "on Meta" this has been brought up, let alone why the link I provide is "problematic". And second, the moderator's expression "among others" is code for "I really got nothing, I just need to make it sound worse". This adds to the pattern of arbitrariness --to say the least-- that began about three years ago when LawSE got new moderators, a pattern which is the opposite of "moderation".

Unlike that moderator, I did the thinking on the OP's question and I made the effort to share with the audience a robust rationale by posting a verifiable answer. The least the moderator could do is refrain from micromanaging that answer. It might be argued that what got censored is just the link and not the rationale, but that misses the point: The arrogance of micromanaging others' posts and a moderator's sake of having the last word even on an issue like this are vexatious and unpleasant. Moderators need to ponder whether micromanaging others' contributions is worth alienating those contributors.

I will not engage in edit wars, but the moderator should have the decency to roll back the changes he made to my answer.

  • 4
    Although this question has an inappropriate tone, I do agree with the central point. This series of edits confused me too. The mod said that "the proposed link is problematic for reasons discussed on Meta", but didn't link to any meta-discussion. I searched for "problematic link" here on meta and the only hit that was even vaguely relevant was this one. So I am really curios what meta-discussion they refer to, so I can refrain from inadvertently also posting links to any "forbidden" sites.
    – Philipp
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 12:22
  • 4
    The original link contains materials that are potentially defamatory and infringing. The Meta discussion on not using Stack to advance your private grudges is here.
    – Pat W. Mod
    Commented Mar 28, 2023 at 12:15
  • @PatW. "The original link contains materials that are potentially defamatory and infringing." The original link contains the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Everything else you choose to explore on that site can be corroborated with police reports, letters by the prosecutor, undisputed news articles, and court records, many of which are available also on that blog. That ample verifiability preemptively disproves your belated and misleading pretext of being "potentially" xyz. Commented Mar 28, 2023 at 15:17
  • 4
    One needn't explore the blog.
    – Pat W. Mod
    Commented Mar 28, 2023 at 16:00
  • @PatW. "One needn't explore the blog." I am just telling you how you can address your misconception so you don't resort to vague and erroneous phrases such as "potentially defamatory and infringing". Regardless of your inclination to reach an informed opinion, you still need to use your mod privileges responsibly, and this latest form of censorship shows you are doing the exact opposite. Commented Mar 28, 2023 at 19:58
  • 1
    What does any of this have to do with "political correctness"? Or is that just a term for anything you dislike?
    – TRiG
    Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 9:12
  • @TRiG "What does any of this have to do with "political correctness"?" I think this is pretty clear from mod's pretext about "potentially defamatory", but there is actually a pattern of censorship. The pretext "potentially defamatory" is unwarranted insofar as I provided beforehand, as evidence, a number of public records regarding a public figure. The sake of political correctness here consists of suppressing those verifiable sources and censoring anything that is not sugarcoated enough. Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 17:18
  • 1
    That's ... that's just not what political correctness is. Political correctness is about calling people by the right names so as to avoid offence. It's about avoiding slurs. It's not about censorship of opinions or sources.
    – TRiG
    Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 17:20
  • @TRiG You are splitting hairs. Censoring other's departure from political correctness is in the same direction of enforcing political correctness. The distinction you are trying to draw is irrelevant to the post anyway. Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 17:41

2 Answers 2


The original link is spam

It links to your site without disclosing your affiliation in the post.

It also appears to be copyright violation

The book linked to is owned by the American Law Institute and is available for sale here.

The original link was to a copy of the entire book without any claim or suggestion that the site has the permission of the ALI to host it. The revised link goes to an extract from a non-profit where they acknowledge the copyright holder and state that they have permission.

We are in no position to assess whether either of these is a copyright violation - that’s a matter between the sites and the copyright holder. However, we do not encourage or endorse links to material that is probably copyright violation.

  • 1
    "It links to your site without disclosing your affiliation in the post." Affiliation is too obvious because my name and picture displayed over there are the same as on the censored post. Any additional disclosure would be too redundant and insinuates that the audience is too dumb to connect the dots by itself. "we do not encourage or endorse links to material that is probably copyright violation." Also this pretext for censorship is very unnecessary because a procedure for Reporting Copyright Infringements already exists. Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 17:33
  • 5
    SE Guideline demands to disclose in the post if you are related or responsible for the site you link to.: However, if you mention your product, website, etc. in your question or answer (or any other contribution to the site), you must disclose your affiliation in your post.
    – Trish
    Commented Aug 1, 2023 at 1:56

There is a link on archive.org. I think American Law Institute is the copyright holder.

  • 2
    One surely can compile a list of links to the Restatement, but this answer completely misses the core issues brought up in this post. Commented Mar 24, 2023 at 14:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .