I can't add much to what everybody's been saying. Creating a "safe harbor" in order to facilitate civility between paranormalists and anti-paranormalists is, of course, a great idea. But what happens when the sea gets choppy? Free speech is free speech, sarcasm is sarcasm, and hate speech is hate speech. Drawing lines between these various modes of self-expression must be a very difficult thing. Just an obvious hunch: there's a difference between insulting an idea and insulting the holder of that idea. Moderators should call a halt when posters get personal with other posters - but not necessarily when posters simply get sarcastic with other posters' claims and ideas.
1) This forum is a part of the Internet, not the U.S.A. There is no "free speech" protection. That is what moderation is for. We are looking for intelligent discussion on science and spirituality, that's it. Anything else, unless it has some other appealing quality, may disappear.
2) Personal posts are always off-limits, but so are inflammatory posts, even if they constrain themselves to claims and ideas. There may be slightly more leniency with one than the other, but I wouldn't bet on it.
3) Sarcasm is not an appealing mode of expression. One problem is that it comes across as careless. Another is that it is not honest. Dishonest posting is frowned upon. Having said that, there are examples of sarcasm that would probably be fine, but again, I'd be careful to avoid sarcasm that you think has the real potential to annoy someone else. This isn't a hard rule, just something that is covered by the four rules Alex posted in the rules thread.