(Jim, is this what we really want @ FR? Instead of sound debate, we have posters like dalight implying going after FREEPERS with "actionable" legal action. Post #162 & others have mentioned "libel.")
Is this what FR is becoming with certain posters? They'll muscle into Romney threads...start dropping legal action hints and implied threats left and right in an attempt to get posters to not say anything negative long run about Mitt Romney?
Do we want such trollish posters trying to put such a squeeze on FR posters? (I don't think so)
This isn't a Romney thread, these folks sacked the thread with blatant bigotry, and libels about Mormonism, that even though I have very little sympathy for Mormon teaching, clear and blatant religiously bigoted statements are generally unacceptable and specifically prohibited by our TOS. If these folks were saying this about Judaism, the whole community would be up in arms. I can't insist on my defense and not provide it to others.
This thread was about Presidential candidates going to Israel to attend Glenn Beck's event and it was throroughly hijacked into an anti-Mitt (which would be ok without the libels) and anti-Glenn Beck coupled with more libels that someone can actually act on..
If the behavior of this group weren't pernicious, and not drawing complaints of other freepers, I would have let it go, but instead, it seemed reasonable to draw these people out, expose them for who they are and let you understand the nature of the problem and the disruption they cause.
Its not about not saying anything negative about Romney, its about making sure what we say is factual, foundationed in evidence, and logical argument and doesn't violate our TOS so that FR is exposed to Legal and Moral risk.
Specifically, the attack against Beck is fraught with peril couched in the terms of obvious calumnies. (The making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone's reputation; slander.) They are seeking to create monetary damages through the vehicle of FR to the Mercury Radio Arts company. The thread topic was reasonable, and these people if they knew how to argue their points would be valuable, but instead, they are just leaving a record that could draw this institution into court and putting a huge exclamation point on it by citing reasons of religious intolerance as the primary reason to oppose and damage the commercial interests of Glenn Beck and this firm. We can speak freely, but only the truth is a defense, and where an animus can be proven, a willful intent to harm regardless of the facts, it is a recipe for disaster.
However, the presence of my counter statements and statements of FR policy are equally protective, but this is but one thread. It is not my business to watch these people and I would have preferred to not have engaged them, but after the 20th or 30th post haranguing me, I decided they were enough of a problem to bring to your attention.
God bless you and thank you for this forum.