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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayne Rumball who wrote (4690)	3/13/1999 10:44:00 AM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 32883

Yawn. Here we go again with the chest beating and calling for rights that do not exist. >>the key issues is not really whether music guy has commited [sic] any violations the big issue is he being singled out and the only one that has paid for his actions<< ... >>she advise me that he could have something similar to a work discrimination case<< That last comment is really a hoot. Anyway, your big issue is a non-issue, to wit: (Excerpt from the Terms of Use) You agree that we may, in our sole discretion, terminate or suspend your access to all or part of the Service for any reason, including, without limitation, breach of the Terms of Use or any subsequent modifications, or attempted assignment of your account by you. To restate, YOU agree that SI has the right, but not the obligation, to act or not act as they see fit, period. There are no limits on their rights (i.e., "without limitation"), and there is no obligation on their part to do anything whatsoever, and there is certainly nothing that says they have to act in what you or anyone else arbitrarily deems to be an equitable manner. In fact, they can act arbitrarily and in an inequitable manner (by no means implying that they do or have) if they choose to do so. You have agreed to that. Ask lance to to inquire of his wife which part of that she doesn't understand. I have to wonder at her qualifications to work for a state's attorney office when she can't read and comprehend plain English.

To: Wayne Rumball who wrote (4690)	3/14/1999 6:54:00 AM
From: Cisco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32883

<<we have the german nazi office stopping free speech...>> Wayne, do you believe that SI should tolerate the following in the name of free speech? Message 8307780 How does allowing posts like this, help SI achieve its goal of becoming the "Best Financial Site" on the web? Currently it is the largest but can it be the best if it allows such posts? Clearly, if SI is going to openly allow direct linking to pornography, it must aggressively enforce the minimum age of its members as stated in the terms of use. Not to do so, I believe violates federal law. SI is certainly aware that some of its members are not old enough to legally view pornography. The choice appears to be SI's. Cisco