While I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, your logic doesn't disprove that guns don't increase violence, only that guns are not the only possible cause of violence. But I think we all knew that already. People somehow manage to be violent without guns. Even when you take away people's arms, they still have legs.
The telecoms lack even one electron volt of shame. Don't you think the main issue is that these telecoms filed a lawsuit to prevent millions from getting broadband connections? That their image is already so blackened, they don't worry how this might appear? How did rural folks become the bad guys for you in this story?
The OP claimed that the +2 charge inside the black hole would suck in a couple electrons, and become neutral, due to the black hole charge . For this to happen, an electrostatic field must emanate from within the black hole, attracting electrons outside the black hole. If this were the case, then then objects within the black hole could communicate with objects outside the black hole, by redistributing the charges inside the black hole. Do you see where this is going? Yes, the emanation of an electrostatic field from a black hole would imply that light could emanate as well. This is straight out of Maxwell's equations. You can't separate charge from electromagnetic theory, or from special relativity, or general relativity.
The link you provide references star-sized black holes having a small charge. The equations deal with changes in the location of the gravitational radius, or Schwartchild radius, at which a given quantity of matter forms a black hole. Yes, charge may affect the formation of the hole, and the vary radius at which it forms, as noted in the link you provided. Once formed, however, the charge contained in the hole will not affect charges outside the event horizon.
You requested that I "Think of the charge as being spread over the event horizon, rather than simplifying the object to be a point charge." That is an interesting request. I usually think of the event horizon as a space-time barrier between the inside of the black hole, from which nothing can escape, and the outside. Space time itself is curved to a point of ripping, so that everything inside is ripped off from the outside. Your suggestion that a charge could be smeared across the event horizon is novel, at least to me. I would certainly have to look at constituent quarks, if I were to examine the suggestion carefully, since the micro black holes would have an event horizon much smaller than the radius of the original protons. Quarks are point-like particles in the standard model, iirc, and would not lend themselves to smearing across an event horizon. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarks. Would you suggest that the charge could be smeared out away from the quark it is associated with? Could the quark be inside the event horizon, and maybe some fraction of the fractional charge be located outside the event horizon?
I think you are imagining a probability distribution function of the protons (and constituent quarks) in flat spacetime superimposed over the black hole created by the protons. Spacetime is curved around a black hole for all purposes, including the calculation of probability distributions. Remember, a probability distribution function is a function of space and time. If space gets curved, the probability distribution function gets curved. To imagine the charge distribution unaffected by the localized spacetime curvature misses the point of what a black hole is, and the typical behavior of the underlying charge-carrying constituents of the protons.
By arguing with the original poster, I'm not trying to say that LHC will necessarily create black holes that will suck in the earth. But these are not easy things to think about. Who is to say that a new theory about the nature of space and time will not make us change our calculations about micro black holes? Our thinking about space and time is, in my opinion, stubbornly primitive, and non-physical. We are overdue for a usable theory unifying the standard model with general relativity. There is a basic conceptual dissonance between QCD and GR. Nothing I've seen from the superstring folks suggests that they are about to calculate the behavior of a black hole created from two protons at LHC. In the absence of such a theory, it strikes me as ignorance, plain and simple to accuse anyone of ignorance, plain and simple. Yep, we're all ignorant, plain and simple, of the final theory. And some people are even ignorant of the standard model, general relativity, and all their useful predictions. Even those hurling insults.
1. The charge of the black hole is completely irrelevant. Remember how a black hole got it's name? Not even light, a time-varying electromagnetic field, can escape it. Likewise, an electrostatic field can't escape a black hole, because of the extreme local curvature of space-time.
2. "Evaporation" of black holes by Hawking radiation depends on particle/antiparticle pairs being created spontaneously from the vacuum at the event horizon of the black hole, with one half of the pair being captured, and the other half radiating away. Hawking makes an energy conservation argument that this process constitutes evaporation. It obviously has not been tested. Calculating the rate of evaporation would not be trivial, and would involve many "assumptions" (e.g., guessing). A convincing and accepted theory of quantum gravity has not yet emerged. Which leads to...
3. In the absence of an accepted, experimentally verified theory of quantum gravity, all your name calling ("Luddites") and hand waving ("an exciting, interesting, and completely harmless development") will probably not convince anybody, one way or the other. And finally...
4. People who live in glass pots shouldn't get stoned.
Judges are immune. Why? The judges say so. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman. In 1971, Judge Stump ordered a 15 year old girl sterilized for being "slow", in violation of her rights. No hearing for the girl. No lawyer protecting the girl's interests. No notice to the girl. She was told that she was getting her appendix out. When she found out later, and tried to sue, Supreme Court said Judge Stump was absolutely immune from prosecution.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?