[this will be my first and final involvement in this thread, as I don't feel qualified to provide legal advice]
strusty, IANAL and I don't have the slightest motivation to start armchair lawyering here, but your interpretation of the primary licenses involved here differs quite a bit from more common interpretations, , including those of many of the companies you quote or precedent set in several jurisdictions. So if you're advocating to disregard the more common interpretations, it would be a good idea to ask a copyright lawyer within your own jurisdiction first, to back up your statements. Given that you seem to be quite keen on international conventions and treaties, I might suggest to read up on the Berne Convention from 1886 as well.
Dragging human rights into this isn't really helping your case either, as it's a display of gross misinterpretation again. Yes, if you go to Hyde Park's corner, town hall place, your own blog or your own lawn, no one would be allowed to silence you, but that doesn't imply that anyone would be forced to tolerate you reciting your opinions on their own lawn. Owners and administrators, or whoever they delegate this responsibility to via community flagging, of this forum instance have every right to execute their prerogative which content to publish -or not. You can ask them to reconsider or override potential community flagging, but the decision is up to them, not you.
 regardless of correct or incorrect, that would be something for a court of law to decide. A blank free pass to "ignore the license terms" would be a rather bold expectation, while granting the same amount of source access you've been given for your derived works might be considered a relatively 'safe' option (and jurisdictions might even disagree here).
 e.g. interpretations may differ in the distinction between "mere aggregation" and "derived works", respectively "independent works based on common interfaces" or what "distribution" means in the first place. This would be something to ask an intellectual property lawyer, but at least at first glance, the OP's question don't even get as far as these potential corner cases.
 it would also make sense to reconsider to which extent your legislation and the hypothetical advice of your lawyer considering the given situation put before them applies to others, under different circumstances and/ or different legislations.
 depending on the actual contractual obligations between the parties involved, your hoster isn't necessarily forced to keep hosting your blog though, if they disagree.
 and even that isn't universal or absolute, as local legislation might come with additional restrictions, such as -among others- content, volume, timing or form.