--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "I made too many postings (some would say that this is just expressing > one's free speech) on FFL." > > The concept of "free speech" does interest me. It does not extend to > private groups. The Boy Scouts of America has been protected under > the First Amendment rights of private association in their > discrimination against atheists and gay members. This forum's rules > do not attempt to restrict your "free speech" by attempting to make > rules that make the forum more enjoyable for everyone. Trying to turn > your own lack of caring for what the rest of the group wants does not > deserve to wear the banner of your "free speech". Free speech is > important, inconsiderateness (in this form) is petty.
You're absolutely right that free speech doesn't extend to private forums, such as this one. So let me use the term "speech" instead of "free speech" which to you (and others I assume) invokes the first amendment of the constitution. My speech and the way I express myself is often practised by short, curt postings. And I do many of them. That's just the way I express myself. Others, such as Barry Wright, tend towards long, many worded postings. Few and far between, but long-worded. Barry's weekly postings are well under the 35 per week limit. His style and my style are on opposite ends of the "speech" spectrum, so to speak. But my style is not allowed on this forum. No violation of my constitutional right to free speech but most certainly a violation of my speech style. Since you are, as you say, interested in the concept of "free speech" then I assume you are familiar with the concept of "proportionality" when it comes to curtailing it within the context of this group. We've all heard the analogy: free speech does not extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. That is, a state or municipality can certainly pass a law in their jurisdiction outlawing the shouting of "fire" in crowded theatres in order to prevent riots and trampling of people. But passing a law that outlaws ANY talking in theatres would most certainly go BEYOND the purpose of such a statute and be found to be unconstitutional. Why? Because it is not proportional to the objective persued. Preventing stampeding in crowded theatres justifies a law banning shouting "fire" at the top of one's lungs; outlawing any talking (which would include whispering and idle chatter amongst theatre goers) is not proportional to the objective sought. In the same way, the 35 posting limit per week is, in my opinion, not proportional to the objective sought. I assume that people who support the 35 per week posting limit do not like so many entries on their FFL list or don't like to receive so many emails of posts that are, to them, nonsense. Well, as I've always maintained, if the above is such an affront to you, simply opt out of receiving FFL via email or, if looking at a "message list" on the Yahoo site (which is the way I do it) simply don't click on the names of those posters you know to be wanton posters (such as myself). Very simple...and minimal effort on the part of participants to weed out the posters to whom they object. But to limit posts to ALL participants to 35 per week does, in my opinion, discriminate against those, such as myself, whose speech is expressed by short, numerous posts. Again, this is a private forum and Rick et al can make up any rules they want and I'm using the proportionality test (which exists in the jurisprudence of free speech law) is meant as an analogy here. But the rule is prejudicial and disproportionate to what is sought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > My bet is that several of them will still be > > > smarting because I wrote them off as assholes > > > yesterday because of *their* past behavior on > > > this forum, refusing to abide by its rules and > > > consciously flouting them, going over the post- > > > ing limit on a regular basis. > > > > [snip] > > > > I'm smarting not because you wrote me off as an asshole but because > > you refuse to acknowledge that you made something up out of whole > > cloth just to win spiritual brownie points in a debate you were > > having with someone on this forum. > > > > I'm the one who refuses to abide by the rules of this forum and who > > consciously flouts those rules by going over the posting limit on a > > regular basis. > > > > > > Ooooh. What a crime. > > > > Well, compare my crime to your's, Barry. You fabricated spiritual > > knowledge to boost your ego in a game of one-upmanship; I made too > > many postings (some would say that this is just expressing one's free > > speech) on FFL. > > > > I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about your > > fabricated spiritual information, Barry. > > >
