Duh - It's Private Property

There is no "right" to free speech in online forums. They are not public venues; the are private. Privately paid for and privately maintained.

'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights

Jul 6, 2:17 PM (ET)
By ANICK JESDANUN

NEW YORK (AP) - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer
generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or
provocative.

Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other
constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.

For example, in this forum, I can delete, modify or allow anything I please and no one has any recourse - except to not participate. I can not be forced to allow content I do not want.

Others believe companies shouldn't police content at all, and if they do,
they should at least make clearer the rules and the mechanisms for appeal.

"Vagueness does not inspire the confidence of people and leaves room for
gaming the system by outside groups," said Lauren Weinstein, a veteran computer
scientist and Internet activist.

When the rules are clear and the grievance procedures are clear, then people
know what they are working with and they at least have a starting point in
urging changes in those rules."

Companies can police their webspace to any extent they wish and their rules can be as painfully bureaucratic or insipidly vague as they like. They can be, if so desired, totally non-existent. They pay for the space, they can do with it as they please.

The cause of freedom is not served by forcing one group to bow to the rules of another.

Kentucky Lawmaker Would Criminalize Founding Fathers...

...if his bill were around in the 1700s.

State Rep. Tim Crouch of Kentucky wants to criminalize anonymous web-posting.

Yes, this bozo is a Republican, sad to say, though he seems to make a better Nannyist. Gotta save us from online bullies, donchya know?

Had his legislation been around in the late 1700s, it would have sought to criminalize Hamilton, Madison and Jay since they used the psuedonym Publius to write the Federalist Papers.

Alexander Hamilton also had Pacificus, Cattalus, Horatius and Philo Camillus. Newspaper publisher Benjamin Franklin had Silence Dogood, Alice Addertongue, Fanny Mournful, Obadiah Plainman and Busy Body. John Adams had about 25 or so false names that he wrote under, including Populus, An American, A Son of Liberty and the unusual "Vindex the Avenger".

This man would make criminals of the Founding Fathers. If made law, his legislation would be an oppression of liberty, a condemnation of freedom, a government shackle upon the right to free speech.

We do not need such as these in our party. Let him go to more like-minded grounds - the democrats.

Another Reason To Oppose McCain

Seems McCain never met a Constitution he didn't like to walk on.

Got a blog?

Know the law enough to identify an "illegal image?"

If your answers are "Yes" and "No," you might get hit for $300,000 if someone posts an "illegal image" to your blog.

And, we all know that it's reasonable to assume that everyone using the Internet is able to readily and reliably identify an "illegal image," right? That's why no one ever falls for those Nigerian scams and no one's computer is hijacked by hackers - because everyone is a consumate computer expert.

First, McCain tramples on the Constitution with his Campaign Finance Reform law that restricts First Amendment guaranteed rights to free speech. Now, he wants to make one criminally liable for the acts of others.

Not really a new idea in theory, though. The DEA has been using this process in the "war on drugs" for years - decades. Got a nice boat, car or home? Better make sure that no one who visits does any drugs without your knowledge and leaves a bit of it behind. DEA will seize your property, because someone else did something that you were totally unaware of.

With the democrats coming in, this sort of government intrusion will only get worse.