When you say, "Reddit" what do you mean? I highly doubt it's the admins removing the posts. Like with this, it was removed for being tabloid news. WashingtonExaminer.com seems to have a pretty obvious slant, and have a lot of tabloid-style headlines. Seems like a fair removal.

edit, after reading the article:

Yeah, seriously this is garbage. Tabloid would be a pretty fair descriptor. This isn't a news article, it's a propaganda piece.

An Amherst College student blacked out, accompanied a fellow student back to her dorm room after drinking in February 2012. While he was blacked out, she performed oral sex on him.

You can already see the slant from the first sentence. There's no question of doubt here at all; everything is taken at face value. I know someone's going to reply and say, "You wouldn't say that if it was a woman who was raped," but really my problem is that there's no information at all. Anywhere. In the entire article. It's just, "He was blacked out, she blew him and accused him of something." Repeated ad naseum.

Nearly two years later, she would accuse him of sexual assault. And under Amherst's guilty-until-proven-innocent (and even then, as we'll see, still guilty) hearing standards, the accused student was expelled.

See those parentheses? Yeah. That's not exactly the mark of a great journalist. This is just injecting opinion into a piece where just giving a short overview of the known facts would suffice. Unless of course the person who wrote this article doesn't know much other than the guy is counter-suing, but then of course, it isn't journalism.

His lawyer had discovered text messages that prove the accused student did not initiate the encounter and in no way sexually assaulted the accuser. Despite this evidence, the college refused to reopen Doe's case.

This evidence. Which we're just going to assume exists because his lawyer said so.

K.C. Johnson, co-author of the book about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax,

The most impartial source you could find, I'm sure.

The rest of the article is basically pull quotes from this guy, talking about the college's "Yes means yes" policy, and saying that it's not reasonable that someone should be held to that burden of proof. That at least I agree with, but the way it's presented just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

What this issue needs is actual journalists. Not click-bait, sex-war-baiting posts from some right-wing tabloid site which only appeal to a slim range of people who follow the Mens Rights movement. Articles like this only make it harder for male rape victims to be seen with any sort of legitimacy. It's the kind of article that makes a feminist like me skeptical of the Mens Rights movement.