Even if you didn’t express “freed of speech” directly, there’s this thing called “subtext” as the underlying theme of what people write, so even without a verbatim example of a specific phrase, the content and reference is still implied.
…and you tend to agree with others that bring it up, which cements the notion of you wanting it to be there in your subtext. The whole basis of why you would think the ‘censorship’ to be ‘unfair’ would have to have a basis in some sort of ‘right’ or assurance that you feel you get to do something, rather than just ‘on principal for the sake of conversational variety’
Much of the whole of your subtext continues to stem from willful ignorance. Part of the narrative I get from your writing is that you haven’t read the “please read before posting” topics and instead want to be told summaries of it on specific cases and will then otherwise continue to do more of the same if your hand is not personally held for all your posts. Problem with that idea, is the ‘please read’ topics, and links therein say that the hand-holding isn’t going to happen 
Some of ‘moral’-stance seems to come from the selective memory you seem to exhibit between one topic to another, such as the notion you didn’t bring up “legal rights” specifically in the post in this topic, but still recycle much of the same phrases and link to other topics that may have that same concern, even if not expressed verbatim for you to recognize in this topic.
“Your access to these forums is a “privilege,” and not a “right.”
The “rights” or “moral” concerns you have regarding your desires for expression don’t necessarily apply in the context of these forums as this is a ‘private’ domain, not a public one, and in which case, your ‘rights’ aren’t being violated as you’re not being censored by the government, though I’d surmise you might associate the ‘authority’ of blizzard here to be a government and thus try to lump the association form one to the other.
However, the instance on ‘moral’ concerns here is ironic and the ‘moral’ here would be based on following the code of conduct, ie the guidelines of expected behavior (and protection) on these boards, rather than the insistence that it only selectively applies when you so want it to do so.
In the post of yours I quoted, the notion of people being able to "post how they want’ could include gibberish, spam, obscenity, libel, false pretenses (such as using code scripts to modify poster appearance to look like a blue/dev) and a myriad of other things you’d then find yourself not wanting to have of the forums.
The code, and abiding by it, is a means to suggest blizz will offer to ‘protect’ the forums from chinese/korean/whatever spam bots that used to flood the old forum (and cause the aggressive spam filter shinanigans) and other stuff if posters are willing to follow it themselves.
Part of the consequence of people fixating on ‘censorship’ is that they tend to do so out of ignorance of things like the CoC, or where their ‘rights’ apply, and then perpetuate multiple violations in pursuit of their concerns of “unjust” action.
Here’s the thing: this topic, as is, is effectual spam (recycling the use of certain phrases) looks to curtail moderator action, cross-link topics apart from the topic (hi, click-bait title) is creating a duplicate topic (both in name and content) uses a misleading title, and discussion locked topic with the impression that the poster hasn’t read the CoC, to which it is their responsibility to do so as a condition of using these forums.
The issue of not ‘talking’ about these sort of things is because they tend to just land out in off-topic central that perpetuates a cycle of CoC violations.
Part of your expressed concern doesn’t even seem to consider that other posters here may have chosen to report the topics mentioned before, as the flag tag exists, as that may be apart of why some topics saw action that others did not.
However, the expectation should be the same and people should attempt to adhere to the code given for the expected conduct on these boards and thus make ‘moral’ posts based on that standard, rather than one they think is the case, and thus want to impose on others with selective adherence to what or where they think it matters.