The Debate Rages – "Is Comment Really Free on CiF Watch" – You Be the Judge

This is a guest post by AKUS
The effect that CiF Watch is having on “Comment is Free” was dramatically illustrated on February 8th, when readers were treated to a brief but fierce debate that suddenly erupted in the thread attached to the latest rather innocuous offering from the Arsonist before the moderators at CiF could swing into action and remove any comments referring to “that other site”, as CiFWatch is known on … well, “that other site”. The debate centered on the interesting question –“Is Comment Really Free on CiFWatch?”
In a strange response to the following on-topic comment by frequent poster Jubilation1:

“grahamew” tossed out what he hoped would be a bombshell (don’t look for it – it was deleted some time later):

Of course, it was a bombshell, but perhaps not as he intended. Interestingly, I captured it when it had received at least 5 recommendations, so we know that there may be as many as 5 CiFers who don’t show up on CiF Watch lurking on the site (perhaps even reading this, eh, grahamew?).
Well, that was too much for some-time poster properbostonian who sprang to Jubilation1’s defence, and contributed an interesting new idea – that CiF Watch may be an organ of Hamas – possibly a little tongue in cheek (as before – don’t look for it – it was deleted some time later):

Despite the best efforts of the moderators, his post remained long enough to attract some attention.
Snowed in in the far north, occasional poster MiniApolis applauded his Eastern seaboard co-commenter, pointing out that it is indeed on CiF Watch that debate IS possible:

Note that MiniApolis bases his/her support on the debate raging between Matt Seaton and the Jewish Chronicle over the Alderman affair (as before – don’t look for it – it was deleted some time later).
But this drew a final comment in the thread on this issue from rabid anti-Israeli poster, Gareth100 (as before – don’t look for it – it was deleted some time later):

Now, Gareth100’s comment indicates a severely closed mind – not someone who pops over here to get the real story – since the Alderman affair has received very wide coverage here and in the blogosphere. In fact, Matt Seaton has referenced it himself:

So we had the interesting spectacle of seeing a string of comments discussing CiFWatch vs. CiF and referencing the Alderman Affair which no less a commenter than Matt Seaton himself had referred to on another thread – all deleted.
You be the judge – which site permits freedom of speech which is in no way abusive, and how scared have the powers that be (holed up at CiF HQ) become of CiF Watch’s scrutiny of their actions?