I don't think it is a simple as the way you have laid out, and I see many laying it out. Let me pitch a what if scenario.

Suppose you wish to go into a certain neighborhood. Your best friends are in that neighborhood and you have enjoyed going there regularly for quite some time. But you begin hearing stories of your friends getting robbed there. And on your way into the neighborhood over time you begin watching others getting robbed for going in there, targeted for the crime of visiting there. You might begin to formulate the crazy notion that there is nothing to differentiate yourself from the others and if you continue going there it isn't if you will be robbed, but when.

Of course, the robbery is a form of reverse robbery. We always talk of "It isn't yours till you receive it," thinking in terms of the person who would be awarded the reward. But that focuses on one part of the equation only. It ignores the ones who want to reward from the stake they hold. I would ask you this. If people see that their votes will be negated, how long until those votes stop being cast to reward on those people? How long before those being flagged start being shunned?

Now one can say there is no censorship taking place, its an allowed use of the law (code). But seems pretty clear to me that it is sending a strong message to people of certain mindsets/beliefs, their kind is not welcome here and only people of opposite beliefs are welcome to earn here. And if you plan on supporting these mindsets, plan on not obtaining rewards so don't waste your time here. Because your time and investment will see no fruits.

Now, it is what it is and no amount of bitching and crying can change it. I don't foresee any forks coming as some propose. I don't foresee any changes to behavior coming about from any flag wars as proposed by some who wish to build some kind of super account via delegation (especially since flag wars benefit those with larger stake, lol). But to pretend this is not a form of censorship via behavior modification is simplifying this to a degree that ignores reality. Smash enough wallets and watch as others either modify what they use their wallets to support, or they give up on the idea that their wallets hold value.

And while I don't see any of the scenarios playing out I mentioned above, I do see this producing bad word of mouth, especially by those who invested and have been targeted or run in circles who have been. Of course many of those who reach that stage will probably at some point decide to power down and move their assets somewhere else where their friends or themselves are not targeted for the views they hold. One can argue chasing these folks off is not censorship, but seems a pretty fine line to me that has the same hard feelings and same results just the same.