It's not the text contrast that bothers me. It's that we're effectively trying to censor someone directly related to the article, if only for the fact that we believe him to be wrong. I would prefer that his comments are perceived as most relevant to the discussion at hand, and upvoted (or at least left alone) so that the comment can stand on its own.

Zee's 'punishment' shouldn't come in the form of mass downvoting and censorship. His punishment should be publicity. Let the community see what he has to say and judge his actions, not his comments.

How are his comments censored? I managed to read them perfectly fine. Censoring would be removal of a comment, not changing the font colour.

I think that's a rather narrow definition of censorship. Maybe you would prefer the term 'suppressed'. Either way, the intent is to signal to readers, "the community consensus is that this comment is not valuable, or does not add to the discussion. It is likely not worth your time to read".

The whole point of voting is that higher-rated comments are brought to the top of the page, making them more visible. Most people don't read every comment.