Why is this downvoted? There are multiple comments in the article based on racial stereotypes which are not only completely unnecessary but reflect negatively upon the author's judgment and credibility. Very ironic considering the article seeks to suppress Mr Lewis's speech.
To quote te_chris:
"On most articles like this it just feels like a bunch of doe-eyed, aspirational men who really want to be rich one day, so don't want to spoil the fun for their future selves."
I also found the racial commentaries problematic and unnecessary. That said, the author is in no way trying to suppress Mr. Lewis's speech.
Disagreement is not censorship.
Only by implication. Calling someone a shill could be considered "only" an attack on credibility, but it's also an implied argument that the speaker lacks the right to speak on that subject.
I did an actual double take at 'potato-wog'. The only people I have run into who use that term for the Irish in normal speech are BNP.