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.

Pastimes : SI Jail, Justice, Censorship or Something Else -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Lawrence who wrote (18)	3/13/1999 6:59:00 PM
From: Wayne Rumball	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64

To: Wayne Rumball (4698 ) From: David Lawrence Saturday, Mar 13 1999 6:26PM ET Reply # of 4700 Wayne, you did not offend me, and my regrets for coming across that way. It's just that we have seen this frivilous complaint appear over and over again. According to that logic, a membership site is permitted to do anything it wants, simply because they announce in advance that they might, and make you "agree" to it in order to join. That is correct, practical, and reasonable. It is their enterprise, and they are allowed to specify their terms of membership and member conduct. If someone does not agree with or desire to be subject to those terms, they simply need not become a member or participate in the forum. A civil contract containing provisions which are in violation of federal or state laws is invalid and unenforceable. True enough. But I don't see where that applies here. What law does the SI Terms of Use violate? Please don't tell me the First Amendment which, in part, prohibits the Congress from passing a law abridging the freedom of speech. Although SI is a public company, it is not owned by the public at large, and is not a division of government. It is not duty bound to observe or enforce first amendment rights to free speech. No such right exists here unless the administrators of SI say it does. That is not a violation of law, because the law does not specify that a private enterprise shall not abridge the right to free speech. Then we have those that who want "fair play". John uses a particular explicative in a posting and is sanctioned in some manner. Jane uses the exact same explicative and no action is taken. Discrimination! is the charge. Sorry folks, that ain't the kind of discrimination that violates federal or state law because it does not discriminate on the basis of a protected attribute. Oh, and based on a PM from lance, he states that his spouse not only works in a state's attorney office, but she is indeed a state's attorney. Nothing personal, but my opinion stands.