I don't think so. Jim has always had a pretty responsible policy, and Freepers don't dox each other, or libel each other, or call for violence upon each other. We are pretty free with insults to public figures, but that's legal.
I understood from reading FR's pages and agreements before joining that it represented itself as a discussion forum with certain philosophical assumptions. It certainly has never seemed to present itself as a neutral public utility. Constitutional protections of free speech seem to me to be explicitly aimed at protecting such digitized "broadsides" as we see here.
I think FR would be considered the contrary situation to FB and Twit, which claim to have no point of view except "community standards" of niceness--which they uphold principally when judging conservative political speech, it seems.