This sort of censorship over non-mainstream theories always makes me uneasy.
Fallacies in science are discussed and resolved using logic and experiment. Not using censorship. Censuring is just putting a lid on the fallacies, and they'll keep on growing under the lid.
Censuring is like saying "Shut up". Well, that's not a scientific argument. A scientific argument is "What you're saying is wrong, as shown experimentally/logically by X in section Y of reference Z". Arguments like "Shut up", or "You're wrong, because X said otherwise", or "You're wrong, what you said appeared in a non-respectable journal" show a lack of scientific arguments.
We usually condemn the Church for making Galilei retract his theories, and condemn the Church's censorship and its Index librorum prohibitorum. And then go on doing this kind of censorship ourselves. We think we have the right to, because we see mistakes in non-mainstream theories. We are right, they are wrong. But the Church censored Galilei because they saw mistakes in his theories too – they gave reasons why his works had to be retracted. They were the "peer-review" of the time. They represented what was accepted and acceptable. In their eyes, they were right, he was wrong. Do we lack a historical sense?
I prefer the point of view attributed to Voltaire: "I wholly disapprove of what you say – and will defend to the death your right to say it".
An important message in Galilei's work, and in the work of others from that period, like Francis Bacon and Giordano Bruno, was that every human being has the right to openly put forward a thesis, and other human beings have the right to approve it or criticize it and argue why it is false, and in turn put forward their own. And every human being has the right to examine this kind of exchange, think about it, and come upon their own conclusions. There's only one true peer reviewer, and that is your own brain. Accepting or rejecting a scientific thesis just because of someone's authority, whoever that might be, is not science, it's religion – we're back at the time of "because Aristotle said so".
Sure, we can say "people who support non-mainstream theories can very well put them elsewhere on the internet, nobody forbids them to do so", and give some reasons why they shouldn't appear on StackExchange. Yet... I don't know, to me it sounds like "democracy is very difficult to handle, so let's instore a dictatorship instead".
When we think of "peer-review" I suppose we ideally think of something like this: someone proposes a theory, and the whole scientific community examine it and "votes" in its favour or against it, from logical and experimental consideration. But actual peer-review doesn't work that way. It's about 1–4 persons making a decision. Statistically speaking that's not a representative sample of the whole community (on top of that they sometimes disagree with one another).
I apologize for the fuzziness in these thoughts. It's an uneasy feeling that I can't put properly into words, related to this kind of discussions about censorship...
By the way, I see a lot of answers in Physics Stack Exchange that don't give any references at all.
