This seems to be the general pattern defining the banishments I've witnessed since a year or so ago.
Unpopular opinion causes reaction. (the truth is often unpopular)
People hit the abuse button, particularly if they cannot defend their ideas.
Reactionary moderators, or Jim himself, delete the posts which cause the clamor, and ultimately ban the "offender".
There was a time when FR was more than a mutual admiration society. It used to be a website that valued truth (at least to a large extent) over conformity. It used to be a website that recognized the value of defending challenges, rather than hiding them (lest someone have to think).
It's unfortunate, but it's true.
Sure. FR began w/o moderation and grew to a certain critical mass. Those who were here when it became necessary to do something to get this place under control can well remember that it was becoming a potential cesspool. Since anyone could, basically post anything, well, they did.
Jim and others made decisions. Any system of command and control is going to have strengths and weaknesses. By and large, I think what we have now works well.
No one holds a gun on anyone to force them to come here.