Hmm, though it's exceptionally tough to corral illegal use without attribution, that notion of anonymous posting was one of the principal drivers of the original project. Whistleblowers and the like have solid needs to be able to get info out without it being traced back.

Of course, illegal would have to be defined as well. Inevitably disclosing classified info is illegal, but in many cases not immoral.

robust safeguards against illegal usage

So it's not truly anonymous? Isn't the entire point of anonymity is to be against people snooping on your private business? Also, since when illegal a catch-all term for all bad things?

Owning slave was legal, and that is certainly bad. Apartheid is still legal in places and that is certainly bad. Criticizing the govt are illegal in MANY countries, but that is certainly bad. Jaywalking is illegal, but does that warrants it being bad?

Does the author of Freenet appoints his moral to a law other human made, god(s?) made, or he himself made?

Either is or it isn't and this clearly isn't. I suspect it's a skill issue

Hyphanet (the predecessor to this new Freenet; possibly superior in some ways) uses an implementation of the "Web of Trust" idea for stuff like this. It doesn't remove content, but hides it if you and the people you trust, don't trust that pseudonym (you can assign trust levels in the 0-100 range IIRC). There are also freesite indexes that are curated (multiple levels; a "clean" one that only contains stuff that is unlikely to cause legal problems, an intermediate one that allows stuff like piracy, and a unmoderated one I think). I guess you can say that Hyphanet doesn't bake moderation into the system itself, but offloads that to individuals and groups. I like this idea, because different people and groups think different things are acceptable and not.