Tell you what. Try posting racially inflammatory comments here at FR and see if the mods try to censure you.
As I read Man50D’s comment, I saw him pointing out that SUBJECTIVE definitions of “irresponsible” and “racist” guarantee that any such government law or ruling as called for by this judge will become de facto political censorship.
The fact that FR maintains for itself (voluntarily) an appropriate high standard in this area is immaterial to his comment.
The owner of a website may set and enforce whatever conditions for its content that he or she chooses. That's different from having the government set those conditions for everyone.
It's like if someone's visiting your house and they start bad-mouthing your wife. They may have a first-amendment right to free speech, but they don't have a first-amendment right to your living room. You can toss them out and they can do their bad-mouthing on the sidewalk... in fashion, free-speech rights and private-property rights are both preserved.
To my mind, the argument that discussion of a court case should be suppressed because it might possibly taint a jury is far too tenuous and theoretical a hook on which to hang the supression of an enumerated constitutional right. If it were a valid argument, it might have been made long before there was an internet to muddy the water. The publicity of court cases has been a factor since the invention of the newspaper.