Quote:

Barry, the situation involved a minor and created the possibility for a potential liability or at least a pain in the ass for this board's owner. This board's owner or his designee has the right to limit speech on this privately owned board in order to prevent potential liability or alleviate what has become a pain in the ass. Aren't the first five words of the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law..."? Free speech is about governmental action, this is about keeping a piece of private property from potentially causing its owner a hassle. Capiche?



I am bored at this moment (Lakers are killing OKC), so I might as well jump in the scrum.

Even though the situation involed a minor, there was never any possibility for potential liability. Anyone, adult or child, can reply on any public forum, even if that forum is a 15YO's blog. There was never any accusation that anyone wrote anything sexually suggestive. It was just a 15YO pissed off that other people warned her not to align with Diana since Diana has a proven history of recruiting teenagers into porn.

Maybe the 15YO's mom should get involved and stop her child from twittering with known prostitutes. If a known prostitute can twitter a 15YO, then explain why another adult cannot warn that child?

As per Tony and freedom of speech: I have no idea what Tony believes concerning feedom of speech. If he truly believes freedom of speech is a right that should be protected at all costs (which I believe), then I question his decision to ban topics on this forum. I'd use stronger words here, but I wish not to be banned.
_________________________
[AWOP troll]^Chicken shit un-American hippie faggot! ^ [/AWOP troll] -- charin