That's an important point (if true), because an original goal of IPFS was to allow removal of illegal content to comply with (local?) laws. So if complying with that IPFS goal means the whole repo gets shut down, that seems intensely abusable.
This could have changed, but my initial impression was that you could "remove" content by blacklisting it at the http gateway, but if you used the IPFS native client instead of the gateway then the content was still accessible.
I thought this was clever--let the lawyers file takedown requests and feel pleased that they can't see the content anymore, but it's always there if you know where to look (as long as somebody still has it pinned).
This is probably the way to handle it in Radicle too, let the project maintainer provide a white/black list of issue hashes (something like a .issueignore, or .issueinclude file at the root) and have the client only bother fetching the ones on a list.
