> > Stifling "free speech" in the name of having > > a "nice" list is heading down a slippery slope. Personally I wouldn't do it. > > But -- someone will. If you don't keep the trolls from abusing your other > users, the other users will shut up, and all you end up with is the trolls. > They drive everyone else off, and you end up with someone ELSE defining what > is and isn't acceptable on your list isntead of you. Freedom of speech was never intended to cover speech that someone ELSE is paying for. Ronald Reagan once shouted down a heckler by saying "I'm paying for this microphone!" And freedom of the press covers those who OWN the press, not those who write for it, or to it. In both cases, I think the list manager is entitled if not OBLIGATED to set the groundrules and enforce them. Call up the editor of your local paper and ask if they would run a classified ad selling a bicycle under 'houses for sale'. I bet they won't, and you cannot force them to do so in court, either. They have the right as the owner of the publication to enforce their rules upon it. So do we. When I have subscribers irate at me for suppressing their right of free speech, which they interpret as being able to say anything they want any way they want to say it, I tell them to set up their own list and run it whatever way they want. One actually did. After a few months, he came back to my list, because it was a hell of a lot less work than running his own. And he has been one of the more vocal supporters of my content management activity since then, too. == Mike Nolan
