I'm not referring to censorship from the administration at all. I'm referring to voting patterns in relation to the expression of honest opinions about 'sacred cows' of HN.

So,

a> no, no adverse effects other than being downvoted (which is a form of suppression of speech through discouragement).

b> that's a bit of a leading idea, assuming I am referring to statements which serve no purpose other than to intentionally inflame. I'm talking about honest opinions, offered as such, which happen to go against the group orthodoxy on HN.

I wouldn't say 'getting mad' would be an issue. Actually, what I'm thinking is more in line with what you are assuming - people make the assumption that a certain line of thinking is being offered solely to be provocative, and they do not take the ideas as having been offered seriously, and rather than engage the idea, downvote as if the intent of the poster was not to seriously engage in discussion.