I didn't mean to present Free Speech as a point in law in favour of the question - obviously it doesn't apply, this site is private property and gnet has the right to do with it as they please. In a larger sense the whole question of any single poster's status is quite a minor one when gnet still, to my knowledge, threatens to kill Classic SI. Which they have a perfect legal right to do. They bought it, it's theirs.
It's just that, presented with the opportunity to vote, i couldn't see myself voting for the termination of anybody, ever, except for the reasons noted. Especially when after considerable thought on the matter i couldn't even vote in favour of TLC's petition to expel that greasy little wannabe Jewburner. So the Free Speech was just an internal factor in my own mind. It'll probably stay there, it's been there for a while.
On second thought however - At the time i voted and posted that i hadn't read much of the thread, and hadn't gone back over any of A@P's performance, which i had quite enjoyed earlier in the year ... haven't had much SI time later, and am not up on all this stuff -
I had forgotten the threats, the I've got a gun stuff, the lawyer sidekick posting threats on his thread, the flying into a menacing rage when questioned whether intelligently or otherwise ... i had forgotten the respect he threw away in those moments. Threats are bad, imho. They threaten Free Speech at its roots. And they are always a red flag on their maker, a sign that the threatener should be investigated more thoroughly.
Do i like the guy? - well, actually, yes - with reservations. He makes a great read, lots of drama. At a party i would likely seek him out, he sounds interesting. If it got a bit much i could just walk away. Change the channel, as you put it. All in all, at this point i would not change my Yes vote.
But i don't like the threats. Not at all. He does bear watching on that point. |
