Serendipper wrote:I've not seen what constitutes forceful disruption and that leaves only their expression of "distasteful views" to underpin "disruption".
And now it is you who forget:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 3#p2682213
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 3#p2682519
Serendipper wrote:...banned someone for expression of views...
That is not why anyone was banned.
Serendipper wrote:I'm sure the 1994 NJ supreme court took that 1972 Tanner decision into consideration
The speech clause in the New Jersey Constitution is broader than that in the US Constitution. Both prohibit laws that restrict the freedom of speech, but New Jersey's also provides for a positive right: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects..." There is not positive right to speech in the US Constitution.
Serendipper wrote:Aren't you broadcasting?
No. Red Lion was specifically about the use of broadcast radio spectrum (compare Miami Herald v. Tornillo, rejecting the fairness doctrine as applied to newspapers).
ILP does not broadcast in the radio spectrum, or any spectrum for that matter.
Serendipper wrote:Who owns the internet? And why does it matter concerning the rights of speech? The audience is public, so ownership is beside the point.
Government ownership matters because the First Amendment primarily and most clearly restricts government.
Audience doesn't matter (see again Tornillo). Indeed, it would completely pervert the purpose of the First Amendment if it disappeared once you started speaking to too many people.
Serendipper wrote:So the competition-reasoning doesn't work since fairness is still absent and, through monopoly, the public is presented with a one-sided view.
1) This is a policy argument, not a legal argument.
2) Monopoly is the wrong word. People sort themselves and consume partisan media, not because any particular news outlet has a monopoly, but because people like to hear news that affirms their worldview.
3) This has existed since the earliest days of the Republic, in the form of openly partisan newspapers.
Serendipper wrote:to arise to the popularity of twitter, youtube, and google isn't a matter of trivia, even though that doesn't apply to ILP, per se, but is a deeper resultant of the ethical slippery slope that begins with ILP.
Your argument is stronger as applied to any website that gets any significant portion of internet traffic, but as the Google and Baidu cases show, that isn't dispositive.
But this too feels like a policy argument rather than a legal argument. Which is fine, if you want to concede the legal point that there is little doubt that banning someone is protected by the First Amendment, we can return to the policy discussion.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I think it is better if things don't just disappear.
I agree, and in the links above I've linked to the posts that got Autsider banned, or, where those posts were removed, I've quoted them.
There are probably better ways to preserve the record, and in an ideal world we'd automatically archive posts and rationale that earned a warning or banning. But we aren't set up to do that, we have a small volunteer staff, and I've been putting off much more pressing upgrades for years.