You're right. reporting on things like this is just too much. I know I like my news to be totally censored.
I'm fine with this article, but surely you can see we aren't talking about censorship here in the traditional sense. We don't want to censor news because it's provocative or because it's taboo, but we do want to ignore news if it's irrelevant or needlessly inflammatory.
Think of all those stories of "some random conservative person says something racist." If that conservative person happens to be important, then by all means, run that news story. But if the conservative person is, I don't know, a guy at a town hall meeting, then we should ask whether this represents real news, or if it's just appealing to a specific narrative. I think there are many news stories which exist purely as clickbait, to play in to the notion that conservatives are all racist and here's another story to prove it.
Similarly, I could run a story about a random black man assaulting or killing a white woman every single time that happens. It's probably a near daily occurrence; there are a huge number of murders and assaults in the US. Technically those are real things that are actually happening, but I think we'd all agree most of those occurrences are irrelevant and that special focus on them would represent a deliberate attempt to frame the racial debate in a particular way.
I think the argument could be made that this article represents "stupid things people do when they're drunk at sports games," and thus isn't any more relevant than an article showing some guys getting in a bar fight. I think Ferguson deserves special attention, however, and most importantly I hold lower standards for a sports website, so I think this story is entirely appropriate. I'm just making it clear that the censorship we're talking about here isn't the normal "these ideas must be silenced" kind but the "this story is completely irrelevant and is just being reported on for clickbait" kind.