Out of topic, but Berf, even I somehow read "suppress" in your statements despite the fact you didn't actually say it. Why is that so, I can't seem to detect from your speech, due to the short moments I have to read and respond. But that tells you a lot of human cognition, aye? We tend to see and hear things we think we're quite sure of, no matter how rational we are, and it isn't always the case. We always think we have the perfect understanding of the world around us... only to realize at a later point in time that almost everything was a lie (paradigm shifts), just because what our eyes see and what our brains interpret is often... different. It's pretty fascinating!
Anywho, back to the topic.
Regarding Kickstarter's regulation, there's actually a lot of things in motion here that we can barely comprehend. For one thing, Kickstarter is providing a service, providing a form of agency to people and hence earning their own fair share. And since they're providing it, it doesn't become a user's national / international right to take those services for granted. Kickstarter has no obligation to support free speech when it comes to selecting which voice deserves more attention, and which doesn't. (Think CGArtists: no matter how good of an artist you are, you can't upload your work to their gallery if they think it's not up to the professional quality they need it to be. We only use those systems because, for one, we don't have a better system which is also cost-effective, and two, it retains power to the administrators of the services.)
Another important element, out of countless others, I see in play here is the value between free-speech and cultural infection. Language can be a blessing and curse, depending how it's used. Because languages and phrases can literally control minds and perception. In English, we have words for "He / She" denoting to male and female organisms, while "It" for animals with unknown gender, or even objects. In Hindi, an equivalent of "It" does not even exist; you simply project a male / female variant to objects, and imagine the objects having sexual connotations -- a tree is female, but the mango is male.
Now how does that affect sexual abuse? Simple: by morphing perceptions to language. See, language or even the current pop-culture is widely acknowledged to be one of the primary enforcers of sexual abuse. You may have heard of the terms: "Get back in the Kitchen", "Damsel in Distress", "She wants the D", etc. I could name countless. On the surface, they seem pretty innocent enough. But they're often taken out of context, for the sake of hilarity, and influence younger generations into thinking, "This is how it works. Women are lesser than men. Men dominate women. I am entitled to MY woman. She better listen to ME." <----- And that, you'd agree, is outright horrible. In fact, current media have actually not only exploited this for the sake of commerce, but also helped enforce this further. Even if language doesn't directly affect some people at the opposite end, it will still subliminally morph their perceptions sufficiently enough to make them tolerant to such a thing, and thereby encouraging them to allow it.
Hence, a bit of regulation is necessary to at least purge away the past filth that promotes violence against women. Remember that even saying out aloud, "Get back in the Kitchen" is dehumanizing enough; and that guy was actually writing a whole book with worse materials in it.
But even then, let's forget I wrote all, and get to the core of your argument: You believe that freedom of speech shouldn't be regulated. That the man who wrote the "seduction guide" should be free to publish it if he feels. Heck, something like Salman Rushdie: He shouldn't be banned from India just because of his Satanic Verses.
But the point here is not about publication, or even self-publication (which have a fair-share of speech-freedoms; guy publishes a book, readers can rate to their heart's content). The point here is endorsement. The point is financial support, crowd-funded. The point is actually paying someone to inspire a whole new generations of criminals, or even a whole new rape-culture, by the money of the people AGAINST those very people, that may essentially become self-destructive to our civilization. The point is actually providing service, some sort of agency, for someone who believes it's totally okay to endorse violence against women.
And how many endorse services and agency to help protect women from such a thing and even educate the masses about it? Well,... that could be for you to think about.
