We investigate the efficacy of Large Language Models (LLMs) in detecting implicit and explicit hate speech, examining how models with minimal safety alignment (uncensored) compare with more heavily aligned (censored) counterparts in a deployed-model setting when deployed using political personas. While uncensored models are often framed as offering a less constrained perspective, our results reveal a trade-off: censored models outperform their uncensored counterparts in both accuracy and robustness, achieving 69.0\% versus 64.1\% strict accuracy. However, this higher performance is also associated with greater resistance to persona-based influence, while uncensored models are more malleable to ideological framing. Furthermore, we identify critical failures across all models in understanding nuanced language such as irony. We also find alarming fairness disparities in performance across different targeted groups and systemic overconfidence that renders self-reported certainty unreliable. These findings challenge the notion of LLMs as objective arbiters and highlight the need for more sophisticated auditing frameworks that account for fairness, calibration, and ideological consistency. Taken together, these results point to censorship-as-deployed rather than safety alignment in isolation as the more appropriate frame for interpreting model differences.