I must take issue with the following:

 "It is unclear how the ombud could hold that an article about redressing past wrongs was not in the public interest, even if he vehemently disagreed with its proposals (as I do). His ruling is a matter of subjective opinion, not objective fact."

I could easily argue persuasively that it is not in the public interest to propose that white males should lose their vote and their assets. However, I would not regard such reasoning as a statement of objective fact. For that I would be required to provide an objective definition of "the public interest;" which it is impossible to do. After all, one person's loss might become another person's gain, with both parties remaining members of the public. And so I would caution against suggesting that an ombud's ruling could be a matter of "objective fact."

Otherwise, I agree with Ivo - the ruling is flawed and dangerous.