There are historically locked posts (such as this one) containing offensive answers (such as this one).
I am not interested in flagging the question for deletion -- a moderator already decided that it's a bad question that should stay anyway. But being locked doesn't mean the answers are all "not offensive" or even "not spam".
I propose that locked posts lose their immunity to spam, offensive, and custom-reason flags.
This only applies to historical locks, and it's very much intentional: before this was built into the system, such questions would repeatedly get flagged.
The whole point is that they're capturing an artifact of the past, frozen in time, for the enjoyment of future historians but no longer an active part of the site. So allowing flags makes no sense: if we're gonna change anything, then it shouldn't be locked, at least not with the Historical lock. Museums don't put little bells next to each painting to summon a censor in the event that someone gets upset about something in them...
If you see something in a locked post that you feel is a serious problem, bring it up on the per-site meta. Folks can discuss it and decide what to do. Otherwise, move on.
If a question is historically locked, it means a moderator locked that post. A moderator will scan the question / answer before doing that (if not, adjust procedure).
I think there is no real need to go over that post again and again. If there is something wrong, just flag one of your own posts and link to that question/answer telling what is wrong. Maybe, if you want to discuss it, raise a question on the site's meta.
