[jmstein7]

Why is it that almost NOBODY got the point I was trying to make.  The entire point was to explain why, despite what some may say, it is justified to boot trolls -- i.e. because they serve no function and add nothing to the debate.  This was not meant to be a critique of FR at all; just the opposite.

Believe me, I don't want any libs trolling here at all.  But, as a Constitutional matter, I should clear this one thing up.  FR has every right to exclude anyone from the forum.  In Boyscouts of America v. Dale, the court clearly held that the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the groups freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way, the groups ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.

Clearly FR is a private forum, and clearly the forced inclusion of libs in our forum would burden our right to fight to keep our country a Free Republic. 

So, to reiterate, my entire point was to defend Jim from criticism.

[Petronski]

The entire point was to explain why, despite what some may say, it is justified to boot trolls -- i.e. because they serve no function and add nothing to the debate.

I understood you quite well, as did many others.

[Cold Heat]

I got your point, but you stated both sides of the issue and some saw that and not the rest.

But, I got your point.

[Cold Heat]

BTW, the mistake in your piece was in the summation paragraph. You failed to state your point there, where you should have in order to avoid confusion.(for future reference)

[Revolting cat!]

Why is it that almost NOBODY got the point I was trying to make.

Gee, I wonder why that might be?! Is the size of the font? Or is it that you come to a street corner jive session with your First Amendments, Justice Holmes, obscure court cases and even more obscure legalistic points? So yes, in the end it may be the big size of the font so perfectly representing the big talk!

[cyborg]

Now that I'm not trying to write a research paper and read, I get your point...

False statements of fact, e.g. intentionally deceptive or libelous utterances, are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Deceptive or defamatory speech is “low value speech,” and it adds nothing constructive to the marketplace of ideas. This is why trolls are prohibited – because they add nothing to the debate and exist only to deceive and distort the truth we are seeking.

[trussell]

I understood the meaning behind your post...You're one of the good guys!!