These people may themselves be opening themselves up for retaliatory flags from people they might not even expect...

Lets say that I have an opinion that X team is the best and Y team sucks. I start flagging people who like Y team, because I think they suck. Eventually people are going to start getting ticked off by this and people that might not even like sports at all might start flagging me just because they think I'm an idiot or disagree with me on principal. People that like Y team might also invest in more Steem, or bring in more friends, or band together more, etc, etc, etc.

But, if I have a significantly large enough stake and the people that I decide to flag don't, I can seriously degrade their experience on the platform. I could create bots that flag every post and comment they make and reply to them with shit that they don't want to look at. I could even flag all of their friends if my stake was large enough. Of course, I'd be wasting my votes on petty bullshit rather than adding value to the blockchain, but I could do it. Even if people nullified my flags and tried to flag every piece of spam I made, I would seriously degrade everyone's experience involved, and even devalue the blockchain to a degree.

If people didn't step forward to nullify my flags though...it could be debated whether I was "censoring" those people in some way. While they are still able to post onto the blockchain, their posts and comments will get significantly less views and interaction. I would be using my power on the platform to relegate my enemies speech to the back page.

Lets say the government decided that they would start working with Google and Microsoft and Facebook to lower the rankings on specific speech that they didn't like, so it was harder to access and view. Would that be censorship? I'm not sure if it would count under the strictest of definitions, but I'm fairly certain it would be a controversy that would make the front pages.