I totally understand, how this can help to mitigate submission of illicit content and how this relieves moderators from a lot of work by outsourcing moderation to users.
Having said that, my concern is that:
1) There are a lot of users with high enough karma. This makes the probability, that someone will be pissed/upset by a certain topic, unacceptably high.
2) I'd even argue, that it's pretty easy to get a high enough karma just by doing regular submissions. E.g. if you submit a couple of links daily over a sufficiently long period of time, there's a good probability that a couple of submissions turn out to be popular.
Does the fact, that you make regular submissions, entitle you to moderation of discussions started by other people? I don't think so.
Also, there's a "conspiracy" side to this. What prevents an adversary, who is indeed interested in targeted censorship (as opposed to genuinely pissed/upset users), from using this tactic to create a user account with high karma? It's important to say that, as I imagine, such an adversary is able to plan strategically and act in advance, so they would already have created such accounts by this moment. I.e. there may already exist users, that are either completely fake or affiliated with adversaries.
Good to know, but I think giving the ability of _anyone_ to flag posts is a mistake. Underlying the whole idea of flagging is the notion that we all share enough in common (in terms of our values) that Person A flagging something somehow is a valuable warning to me to avoid that post. Which turns out almost never to be true...