Thomas Dalton wrote:
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Too often OTRS people remove *all* the material, not just the offending stuff. If just one paragraph was removed, I'm sure you would get very few complaints from the community. It's blanking whole pages without (significant) explanation which annoys people.
When the perceived offence is that an article exists AT ALL on the given subject, there is little recourse in the short term but to completely blank the article. If further discussion decides to reinstate the article, no harm; if the decision is to reinstate under a different title, equally no harm done.
The thing is that in many of these cases, we have to be able to demonstrate that we are doing SOMEthing to prove our good faith, in order to assume the moral high ground. If we can later show that we bent over backwards to help people, outside observers are more likely to give us the benefit of the doubt. If we're up against the usual kind of querulous "vexatious litigant" this can be of great help.
HTH HAND