Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (1577)	9/22/2006 3:58:33 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

And I'll file an amicus brief supporting that. <G>

To: mph who wrote (1577)	9/22/2006 4:01:51 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

"I didn't suggest the proposed rule was 'ridiculous. I know. Tim did at the start of this topic of discussion. "I just think it's unnecessary." You may be right about that. "...consistent with free speech notions, it makes more sense to allow those who desire to be shielded from the opinions of others" The intent of the rule isn't to shield any one from opinions of any kind. There have been some very rank, and offensive opinions expressed on this thread IMO. That's not against the rules. Even with a notoorabout in place the opinions can be viewed when expressed to someone else or to the forum. I know for a fact that that happens even when notoorabouts are being respected. The intent is only to respect a person's freedom to choose not to be in personal contact with one person while engaging a public forum. There is no restriction to the expression of opinions tied to notoorabouts that go beyond the usual rules. So in some sense it comes under freedom of association. But in no way restricts freedom of speech. "...without enacting a vague rule of prior restraint." What's vague about not being able to speak to or about a specific poster XYZ? Is it the vagueness about when such a rule might or might not be enforced?