So we don't know if it can be logically explained in any other way because we don't have sufficient information.
We have plenty of sufficient information to make that determination for those instances presented. What other logical explanation could there be for allowing advocating murder of white people, gang rape of Sarah Palin etc, while banning people for saying relatively innocuous things? I'd love to hear a logical explanation for those things.
No, I mean actual empirical research. If you think all academic research is inherently biased then you're basically in a neverending positive feedback loop where no contrary information can ever be admitted. I mean if you think the media is biased and then researchers show you it isn't to which your response is they must then be biased too you've made yourself immune to facts.
"Research" can be used to come to any conclusion you want it to. Who's doing the research? How are they doing it? Who's funding it? What is the goal? etc etc Those are all pertinent questions. I don't think all academic research is inherently biased, but I've spent enough time in academia to know that there is a very heavy general left lean, so we need to be skeptical of politically charged "research".
Not immune to facts at all, but in this case the facts are anything but clear and easily discernible on an objective basis.