Personally I think there is a place for both approaches - the scored "whatever goes" approach, or what I thought arete was, of kind of open but "we're not allowing that kind of thing here" when necessary approach.
Sometimes it feels important to me to be able to have open conversations about topics. Perhaps in the OP, some might for example be able to discuss how they were abused and feel like abusing others and through discussion find ways to not abuse others. So I do think there can be tangible value in being able to openly discuss things.
On other occasions it seems nice to be closed off and not have to deal with such promotion of errors or unsavory topics.
I think the problem is the idea of a free speech forum. Usually, forums are supposed to be dedicated to one or two topics. I call websites like Reddit (and now Scored) a "multiforum", where people can make their own. The problem is, the owners of the multiforum and the biggest individual forum communites can press their will on the rest. Mods anywhere that operate so-called "free speech forums" (which usually means right wing) need to put their feet down and say; "No, you can not post your degeneracy here. No, you can not promote the enemy here."