It's not hard to criticize something like "the FBI's abuse of power" in thoughtful, substantive ways. Plenty of HN users do that while staying within the site guidelines. From a moderation perspective, the issue here isn't the FBI or any other divisive topic—it's simply comment quality.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
You have to argue in front of a federal judge that the existence of reports chills your speech, but you also have to prove you were effected, so its like schrondinger’s speech where the judge cant curb a government behavior if you cant prove something you didnt do, happened.
Why, assuming it belongs to you?