SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : Pluvia vs. Westergaard
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bill Wexler who wrote (685)8/31/1997 2:34:00 PM
From: Andrew Hunter   of 1267
 
I suggest you re-read my post. I wasn't saying that SI had an obligation to support free speech, especially not a legal obligation.

That's why I feel it's important for SI members to vote heavily on the side of free speech.

I agree that the first amendment doesn't require that private forums have free speech. I also wouldn't change this.

My point is that in order for SI to meet it's potential, it (and we) should be vigilant in an anti-censorship stance. It would be worth far less in posters were kicked off or intimidated off by thuggish tactics on the part of those who disagreed with their bullish or bearish sentiments. The reason this case is important is that it's one of the first, but it certainly won't be the last. If we decide not to make a big deal of it because, after all, Puliva was rude - then the next time it happens it will all the more easier for the censor.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News