I think Sol is partly right in that he has the right to speak "objectively" of matters that are supposed to be objective. To not able to discuss it may indeed be censorship. We are objectively discussing the "subjects" that are actual people, which the matter of discussing it being ethical or not is another discussion that's besides the point.
The problem is, where is the objectivity in this? How are we supposed to decide what is objective or not? How do we escape from the fact that the "researchers" like Sol himself aren't biased by his own psychology, his own emotions, his own expectations, his own biases?
This problem can be solved if we assume that human beings are capable of rational thought, and therefore we can arrive at objectivity via rational arguments. The only way to know whether something is objective or not, is through rational arguments. We make the best case for deciding when something is objective, and when something is not.
The entire problem, then, is that the entire argument of what makes something objective or not, is missing. Without rational arguments, they're arbitrary subjective opinions.
So how do we know when something is objective? That can be only created by rational arguments.