Anything that’s illegal in Arizona, USA, is not permitted here at all...hate speech, and attacks of protected classes (race, religion, gender, etc.), but this list is not exhaustive.
Yes, I recognize political orientation is not legally a "protected class", but the spirit of those laws is people should not be abused or denigrated because of group identity. In general, AM management does not permit this...until it invokes its sense of Selective Beagle Hearing when it comes to people with left-wing political views. Then, suddenly, it's fair game for members to state "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS STOOPID...AND EBIL!"
And, no, just because some RWAFs can (sometimes) couch those statements in superficially less inflammatory language, it does not change the semantic content or truth value (in the sense of empirical verification) of those statements.
Nor is it sufficient to say to those who object to such characterization, "Well, you can always debunk their arguments logically." That's not how the human mind works. Allowing one group to repeatedly make "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRRUHLZ IS STOOPID AND EBIL!" statements while only permitting opponents to say, "Dear sir (or madam), I beg to differ..." is fundamentally NOT "fair and balanced" and DOES result in an implicit endorsement of the more rhetorically liberated expressions.
I encourage everyone to investigate the works of neuroscientists such as George Lakoff, Daniel Gilbert, or Dan Kahan, which document how rhetorical framing is often FAR more important than the semantic content (and the empirical verifiability thereof) of language, ESPECIALLY when it comes to culturally contentious subjects.
In short, AM's reflexive bleating of "four legs good, two legs bad"...er, my rhetorical flourishes are TOS violations while RWAF's statements of "ALL THE STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ..."...er, "Leftism is pure sin!" (or similar) are A-OK means members with one political orientation are allowed to use rhetorical bazookas, while others are restricted to rhetorical squirt guns. There is nothing remotely fair about that asymmetry.
I have presented the above argument to AM management multiple times (and in far more detail and with far more empirical support than what I have chosen to post here). They remain unmoved, continuing to invoke one section of the TOS while ignoring the implications of the other.
As I've stated before, it's the management's web site. They can run it anyway they choose. But just because they choose to run it a certain way does not implicitly make that way fair or reasonable.
Old School out...
Kittigate 