PeterDavid.net

The idealistic part of me wants to say "no."

But after seeing the same type of people do the same thing on your AOL board, I'm just so tired of it that I really feel like I should say "yes."

But with a "who has time for this crap anymore?" qualifier.

Uh...sorry, tired....reverse that "yes" and "no."

clearly don't like the opinions of the vast majority of posters

Wow, I didn't realize that only people who like the opinions of the vast majority of posters should post here. I would say "Yes", that does contradict your commitment to irresponsible, oops I mean free speech.

Geez...now we'll all get paranoid that someone is targeting us specifically! =)

I don't know what level of annoyance qualifies for ejection. If someone comes here just to call us all idiots and use potty-talk, then they obviously should go. But I remember getting seriously dissed by some people on the newsgroup when I asked about a starship class in the Captain's Table NF book.

There are those of us who hold PAD-works to a higher standard because he's among our favorite writers. There are also those who think PAD should never EVER be questioned and anyone who does so is a fool, bordering on an infidel.

So what's the level of annoyance we're examining? And how can such a diverse group of fans be the final arbiter when we can't agree as to what makes a good fan?

Wow, I didn't realize that only people who like the opinions of the vast majority of posters should post here.

Okay...you DO realize that what you just wrote is wholly unrelated to what I just said, right? I mean, zero relevance? You sliced one part of the sentence out and focused on that while ignoring the context and produced an entirely new sentiment that not only doesn't represent what I said, but with which I completely disagree.

Over time, any number of people have posted refuting opinions and they have been well phrased, intelligent, and stimulating.

Vote "yes" if you wish, but please understand that you completely misrepresented what I said. Whether you did it inadvertently or maliciously, I don't know, but you did it.

PAD

So what's the level of annoyance we're examining? And how can such a diverse group of fans be the final arbiter when we can't agree as to what makes a good fan?

They're not, Matt. It's my name on the board. I'm the final arbiter. Buck stops here and all that.

What I'm looking for are simple, intelligent thoughts as to whether it would be hypocritical to boot people I feel are simply showing up, not to contribute, but to be destructive.

PAD

No. He's free to find another forum to speak (where, admittedly, he'll probably rant about what a jerk you are for kicking him off), or create his own forum for his many fans. Just as DC or Marvel don't have to publish everything you write, you don't have to continually give him a platform just so he can insult you.

(And considering he's pretty much lighting his own farts, as you say, those fans may come in handy.)

And since by the way you phrased things it seems you don't want this to become a referendum on any one person, I'll refrain from saying how happy I'll be when the little nitwit is gone.

Rob

Well, that depends on your committment to free speech. If you are taking a Supreme-Court-like stance, then yes, they should stay. The Supreme Court holds that almost all speech is protected to some degree or another.

What is NOT protected whatsoever is false/illegal/misleading commercial speech (no application here), obscenity (not to be confused with pornography) (also no application here because words CANNOT be obscene), libel (possibly depending on who is being berated... PAD = public figure and that is ok, other posters, no), Fighting Words (must be face-to-face so not here), and clear and present danger (again, not here).

So, where does that leave us? Back to the start actually. Ultimately this is YOUR board PAD and you can make up whatever standards you wish (be it strict scrutiny = highest form of protection, intermediate scrutiny = substantially related to an important government (in this case PAD website) interest, or a merely rationality (speech related to a legitimate purpose).

If it were my site and people were intentionally disparaging and harassing other posters, attacking them personally rather than their views and opinions they are basically committing libel and get the boot. If there are merely pestering and annoying in general, there is little question they have a "first amendment" right to do so. This is basically an electronic public forum (as opposed to private or quasi-private) forum which also, by Supreme Court standards, most all speech is protected and allowed.

In short, your site and your call. If some jerks are causing real fans and serious debaters from returning, you should probably boot them since they are interfering with your (and other) personal enjoyment and potentially revenue enhancing properties. However the moral conundrum, in my opinion should be decided as stated above: annoying and rude = let them stay

personally derisive to Joe Public = boot them

Vote "yes" if you wish, but please understand that you completely misrepresented what I said. Whether you did it inadvertently or maliciously, I don't know, but you did it.

No malice on my part(well except for my dig on your free speech stance). With you adding that qualifier in parenthesis it honestly seems like you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the majority must only be here to iritate others.

PAD, your board, your call. It is humorous in the short term to see someone jump up and make a fool of themselves, but only for the short term. Then it just becomes sad.

Maybe some of these people will eventually grow up? Small chance, but there's always hope. : )

I vote Yes, but with conditions. Perhaps a couple of public warnings(and private if they're brave enough to sign their posts with their e-mail link). Then, if that doesn't work, it's time for the big ol' boot.

As one of my former bosses once said, "This is not a democracy..."

The sad truth is the easiest, and usually the only permanent way to get people like that to leave and stay gone is to ignore their posts. Asine comments are DESIGNED to merit a response, just like trash-talk is designed to distract in sports.

Be a champion, rise above and ignore, but dont bother banning....you only give them more fuel for the fire.

so i guess i vote: yes.

A lurker has decided to chime in. Peter, I'm a huge beleiver in free speech, but this is your website... your property and we are your guests. If you feel like you have no choice but to throw out some people who are not behaving and came here soley for the purpose of annoying you and the other people who come here, they have the freedom to set up a website somewhere else. You're not taking a freedom of speech away from anyone.

Just the way I feel.

No malice on my part(well except for my dig on your free speech stance). With you adding that qualifier in parenthesis it honestly seems like you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the majority must only be here to iritate others.

Only under the most strained of readings, particularly since the section you quoted was *from* the parenthetical. The sentence spoke of people who were "obnoxious and insulting" and then mentioned as an aside that it seemed they only came here because they disagreed with the liberal opinions expressed here. To read it as a blanket condemnation of anyone with more conservative leanings, you'd have to flipflop the whole sentence. To read it, literally, as "People come here who have other opinions, and they're obnoxious and insulting." Which isn't what I said. At all.

PAD

Yes. Maybe that's because I've yet to read entries that are nothing but obnoxious and insulting. In all cases I've observed I think people do try to make a point.

Looking at some recent postings, I disagree with the ideas behind some of them, and even more so with faulty logic, name-calling, non-sequiturs, obnoxiousness and insults.

But people have a point to make, however clumsily they go at it.

Occasionally, things will get out of hand. Just as public figure Bush must put up with more insults than a private person could be expected to, PAD should be willing to put up with a lot. (Which he has been doing.)

For all sides, I think it would make it easier to convince others if people didn't antagonize each other too much.

BTW: PAD, I'm entirely happy with your entries and enjoy them a lot. This includes the responses they provoke.

Thomas

Have to concur with Donner. Sure, the First Amendment guarantees that THE GOVERNMENT cannot abridge our right to speak freely. PAD isn't the government. He's not even abridging anyone's right to speak freely if he removes them from the board. As I have to remind my debaters on occasion, the First Amendment guarantees your right to speak; it makes no guarantees of an audience or a forum.

I don't think it compromises your position at all, PAD. You can be pro-free speech and anti-@$$hole. So drop 'em from the board if they can't behave (whoever the nebulous "they" are).

Dave

People abuse their free speech rights on the internet all the time. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and to express it freely as they wish. Unfortunately, many people don't understand that free speech also carries a responsibility. That responsibility, while not expressly stated, is to be polite and courteous to others.

To be rude, impolite, and insulting is usually a sign of thoughtlessness on the part of the speaker.

Ultimately, it's your site, PAD. I'll support whatever decision you make - but I do vote 'no'.

I may be new here, but I haven't noticed all that many obnoxious troll types. In fact, this is the most consistently polite message board I visit. But, I've never let being uninformed stop me from rendering an opinion...

Maybe I've got an unusually broad interpretation of free speech, but I don't see a conflict. People have the right to say, think, and write anything they want, but there's no inherent, absolute right to have THEIR comments posted on YOUR site. "Entertainment Weekly" doesn't print letters that are poorly written or completely nonsensical, and Howard Stern hangs up on callers who are boorish and off-topic. They're not infringing on anybody's rights, and neither, I think, would you be.

SEAN

A belief in free speech does not mean a responsibility to offer a forum for every speaker. They have access to the web. No doubt there are "we hate PAD" boards out there where the particularly vitriolic will find many ardent admirers for their spew.

Does every fan letter Marvel receives for a letter page see print? No. Is that censorship? No. Because while the person has the right to write the letter in the first place Marvel is under no obligation to print every one.

Are book publishers indulging in censorship because they turn down manuscripts? No.

And you have that same right.

There are two basic questions that you have to ask yourself when considering this concern "what is the purpose of this board?" and "who is the board for?"

I don't think it is hypocritical for you to ban/boot/kick/heavily ridicule people that you personally find offensive. I think the slope becomes a little slipperier if you are banning people on someone elses recomendation. Because then you can get into issues of who you choose to listen to or don't listen to...

Of course you could just ---REST OF MESSAGE ERASED BY MODERATOR---

(just kidding)

Mike.

A lot of people watched the Super Bowl half-time show and complained about the content.

My question to them is: Why didn't you change the channel?

My question to those posters who come here to cause trouble is: Why do you bother to come here? Do you value your own time so little that you are willing to spend it here arguing? You aren't going to change Peter's opinion on very many subjects. Attacking him is such a waste of your time. Wouldn't you rather spend that time doing something constructive?

I am now 50 years old. I am definitely closer to the end than the beginning. My only regret in life is the time that I wasted that could have been used for better things. I mourn for that lost time.

Peter, as for banning posters, that's a tough call. If it were my site, I would have booted a couple people because of their un-civil attitudes toward the host and other posters. If it were my site, the rule would be that you can call yourself an idiot, but not the other posters.

Kicking a poster off the site is not in conflict with free speech. Sane, rational comments should be welcomed. Flamers may need to be extinguished.

It's the hight of rudeness to walk into someone's living room and take a dump in the comfy chair.

It's a slippery slope of course, but it's the Mount PAD and you get to decide who climbs it.

As for the HOW question, I recommend you talk with David Henderson from Psiphi.org about the Irelan Solution.

I moderate a message board myself and I am of the opinion that if someone comes to the message board and continually posts statements and thoughts that are insulting to the hosts, their beliefs or their ideas then they get reprimanded. If they continue then they are banned. My message board is not where I want to go to be insulted...I will see my friends personally and let them have that honor.

Ban them is my vote.

As someone who can be and often is a jerk, I'd vote no.

We all have our moments, some more than others.

I don't like being judged as a person because of those moments and I've read enough internet message-board/blog-comment crap to know that it's not good policy to do so. Oftentimes it just ends up being an inacurrate judgement of who people are and what exactly they stand for.

I know that I know exactly none of you. I've read some of Luigi Novi's stuff in a faux-plethora of periodicals. I like PAD's comics and most of his tastes.

No matter what happens, we should all remember that there is no free speech whatsoever here. This speech is paid for by PAD and allowed to temporously exist because of PAD. It's not free.

I believe that people whom would post calm, rational stuff but slip shouldn't be branded for their slip.

I also don't want to PAD to invoke his right to delete anyone whom he disagrees with. I don't know if he would or not. I can read every entry here, but I don't know the guy.

CJA

I'll vote that it's completely Peter's call, under the theory that someone's right to swing their fist ends when it hits my nose. It's his site and board, and whatever rules he cares to make are appropriate for his site.

[But as a long Usenet veteran who's wished for the ability to do it, I'd personally boot the trolls, since it's under no stretch of the imagination a free speech issue]

Peter,

You have every right to ban posters if all they do is insult and curse and so forth. Obviously, I’ve never noticed in your writings the impulse to censor people merely for disagreeing with you, even when they used the most threadbare fallacies and inconsistencies in doing so. When the worst a poster does is make a poorly argued statement, it’s easy to simply show where their logic doesn’t hold up, as you, I, and others have done many times here, such as with Kenwise on this board. Censorship isn’t necessary.

What confuses me, on the other hand, is that aside from that thread a month or so ago in which one poster deliberately misinterpreted comments by myself, Tim Lynch, and others in order to accuse us of anti-Semitism, and tried to position himself as your personal representative in order to accuse us of insulting you and your God, I haven’t really noticed any trolls or lurkers here. Even in that case, when I asked you to make a statement to let that person know that he was not your personal mouthpiece, and that his position was not necessarily yours, you decided to handle it quietly with him, and that’s fine.

So which posters are you talking about? I don’t want it to look like I’m trying to get you to name names or anything, but are there any posters in particular you’re thinking of? I mean, yes, some people have been insulting when disagreeing with you or the other posters here, but I haven’t noticed anyone who comes here solely to do so. I could be wrong, though.

Peter David: So the question is: Does throwing people out of this website because they're obnoxious and insulting (and apparently come here solely to irritate people since they clearly don't like the opinions of the vast majority of posters) present a conflict with my commitment to free speech?

Kenwise: With you adding that qualifier in parenthesis it honestly seems like you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the majority must only be here to iritate others.

Luigi Novi: Only because you seem to have a problem comprehending what you’re reading, Ken.

The only people he is referring to in that statement is people who are obnoxious and insulting because they don’t like the opinions of the majority of posters. He made no statement on whether people who don’t like the opinions of the majority of posters act that way. He’s talking about people who exhibit a behavior because of a feeling they have, and you’re essentially accusing him of saying that all who have the feeling exhibit the behavior.

I vote yes, because this is not a public space, and the only good online communities are the ones that self-police and aren't afraid to offend people they don't want around anyway.

That said, I find it very easy to ignore the trolls in the format this is in. They aren't as visible as, say, on Usenet. Or as they think they are. Most times, I read the main post, and maybe skim the comments. And I rarely come back to a post after I've first read it, so any trollage after that isn't even seen. I imagine I'm not unusual in this respect.

Admittedly, I'm a relative newcomer to this space, but I vote "no" -- you're entirely within your rights to establish and enforce minimum standards of courtesy in the comment-stream.

I'll echo and amplify Scavenger's comment upthread. There's a long-standing tradition in cyberspace that defines author-hosted conversation spaces -- CompuServe forums, GEnie author topics, SFF Net newsgroups, personal-domain blogs -- as "virtual living rooms" wherein the host author has the final say on what's kosher and what isn't.

For the most part, it's a power and privilege that gets wielded with a very light hand -- and it's my experience that political discussions in author-hosted fora have been more civilized, on average, than those in general-issue newsgroups and Web-forums.

But there've been exceptions, and I think it's only right and proper to hold visitors to a hosted forum to a basic level of politeness. Just as one occasionally needs to take a party guest's car keys and call him a taxi, one occasionally needs to show a sufficiently discourteous poster the virtual door.

well, this is your "place" and we are all your guests. to that extent, a general warning should go out, then you are free to give them the boot.

Er, correction to my last vote - that's a NO. (Misread it briefly as yes, kick them out. But it's No, don't ignore them.) Sorry about that.

I am of the opinion that the BanHammer should be a potential method to resort to, but it should be the last resort, and should not be undertaken lightly.

We all hear about ban-happy boards where the moderators run around altering posts and banning people who chat and then there's no real discussion since everyone's afraid to speak their mind.

And there's the other side of the spectrum which is boards where people run rampant, post flamebait, get in long-tireless arguments about brain-draining stupid banalities and no one feels they can have a conversation without it being interrupted by someone beating his own personal drum.

I've been on tons of boards, some of which have slid between these two extremes over a matter of months, and neither extreme's palatable. I like the notion of a board where someone who steps over the line will be spoken to, kindly at first and then not-so-kindly, and that the option of removing a really, really over-the-line individual is there. It's like a cop's gun or club - it does most of its work when it's in the holster.

So I vote "yes, PAD, you can boot people off the board" - but I strongly, strongly recommend you be careful about it, since it can turn into a real slippery slope. Just let folks know that the possibility of it is there.

I think it is important to remember that this is NOT a public forum. It is a private forum--Peter's, to be specific--that the public has been invited to. No one (save Peter) has the right to post here. We have the privelage to do so.

It doesn't conflict a commitment to free speech to ask someone unwelcome to leave your home. The same applies here for Peter. I think that someone would have to be very, very bad for it to even come to such a drastic measure but Peter should not feel guilty about taking that step if it is needed.

--Jeff

My father once told me that you can't argue with an idiot, or the closed minded. and clearly that's what your dealing with here but the web is supposed to be free and for everyone, learn to tune them out and forget them...

But then you mention that it's akin to lighting farts in your livingroom, if I was a part of the fun and merryment that would be one thing but if there as bad as you say they are then they wouldn't have been invited to begin with...

"I don't evy your position Captain"

Ernie

Kick them off. This is your site, and you should have the right to kick them out if they step over the line and insult your other guests. Show them the door, Bounce 'em.

I vote yes, let the poorly behaved stay.

But. I have to agree, I don't think that it is a free speech issue. No one has a right to be provided a venue for their free speech. It isn't about disagreeing with what may be the majority of the posters here. It is about how people are treated and how people conduct themselves.

A well-reasoned and well-argued opposing point of view is of greater value than a series of agreements. I could be mistaken but I didn't have the impression that PAD's ego was so stricken as to want nothing but sycophantic praise in the postings here.

Have you considered a system of warnings and eventual suspension for a few days or a week when they can't resist the urge to be excessively and repeatedly obnoxious?

cal

I'll go with whatever your decision is, though I should point out that usual arguement is that you should traet the board you're on as if it was the host's home.

Likewise if someone is coming on heer just to insult and berate people who disagree with him, then that person is making it that much harder to seperate the signal from the noise, and problem almost out of control online anyway.

No, it doesn't conflict.

I run a website and game (read PBEM RPG writing platform) myself, PAD. I have banned people from my website before, but do I feel bad about it because of the first amendment? Again, no.

The reason is: We'll all get along fine and their rights will be observed and honored, AS LONG AS, they don't interfere with OTHERS' rights. If someone wants to be a disruptive jackass, then they can find somewhere else to do it and not interfere with my game's players' rights.

It may sound harsh and cold, but in the end, the people who depend on me for keeping our game website and forum updated, do NOT have to put up with people who's only interest is being a pain in the nether regions.

To echo most sentiments, it's your call. Sad as it is, virtually any political discussion these days (online or otherwise) is simply a pissing match. Minds don't change, people just shout whichever party line they've chosen to follow. Sooner or later the assholes show up and ruin the fun for everybody. I don't think there's any conflict in booting the assclowns, though ignoring them is usually the best way to go.

Based on the way you've defined free speech in the past, it could pose a conflict...

But as for me, I would've thrown those guys out a long time ago and not felt a twinge of conscience.

People's rights to swing their fists stop at the ends of other people's noses. If you can't comport yourself like a reasonable person in someone else's weblog, there's no reason the other person has to put up with it.

(I find the Reasonable Person Principle fairly useful as a benchmark for things like posting commentary. "Would a reasonable person do this? No? Then why the heck am I doing it?" ;)

I vote "No".

Free speech doesn't mean you can be disrespectful to anyone you want, but some people have yet to understand this.

One: A free forum like this one should be treated as being a guest in someone's house (in this case, PAD's) and decorum and a fair amount of politeness to differing opinions should follow. Two: Outright rudeness, personal attacks/threats shouldn't be tolerated. I can understand if, in the heat of debate, one slips and writes something out of turn. However, if this behavior is repeated frequently, and the offending person neglects to apologize for their mistake, then something should be done about it.

I think that (unless it's costly and too much trouble) PAD should have the power to oust in extreme cases. But it should be used sparingly.

Nuke 'em -- that did start as a fairly reasoned arguement about the nature of free speech versus responsiblity for ones statements, but its too late and my brain isn't working. If them can't play well with the other children then send them home.

I vote "no", as in, ethics are not violated by bouncing the offender on his/her electronic keister.

I had this long rant written out on the topic, but a large number of more eloquent folks (such as Donner, Alan Coil, and Tom Galloway, just to name a very few) have beaten me to all the decent points I could have made. This is Peter David's website, not Joe Nitwit's site, and not the government's site. Peter David is paying the bills here, and -- just like on his private phone line, where a telemarketer's right to speak about this handsome vacuum cleaner cannot be infringed by Mr. David's right to not have him calling his phone against his wishes; just like in his mailbox, where a mass-mailer's right to advertise her questionable organ enhancement treatment cannot be infringed by Mr. David's right to not pay his ISP for bandwidth and storage of unwanted spam -- only one party gets to decide what ought and oughtn't appear on these pages. (Glenn Hauman, you're included in that party, naturally.)

Heck, you don't even need a reason to ban someone. Tired of all those esses which appear in Jarissa's name? Feel like getting rid of everybody whose posting identity starts with the letter J on a Tuesday, as said persons might be the Gotham City weather reporters? Go for it. It's your web site.

I do think that the reason so very many people continue to behave poorly online is because they "know" they won't bring upon themselves any serious consequences. Forget banning, says I; track down their IP addresses, add in the timestamps of the naughtiness, and contact Joe Nitwit's service provider with the rather vexed news regarding this violation of Terms Of Use. (Yes, Joe Nitwit, being -- in technical terms -- a jerk online is one of those things that lets the ISP take your money but deny you service anyway, legally. Sometimes, depending on the detail of the legalese, a TOU violator can even be charged for time and resources on the ISP's server that were wasted in misbehavior.)

Any lawyer-types want to volunteer their services to Mr. David for the actual detail work with the ISP in question?

I also want to thank you for caring so strongly what we may think of you. You're a good man. Now go forth, and put up with excessive crap no more.

Sheepish P.S.: Yeah, that's the "short" rant. Sorry.

I've never regarded restriction of venue to be a restriction on freedom of speech. Anyone on this board is free to say whatever the hell they want, just not necessarily here.

Oops - sorry, forgot to actually 'vote'. I vote no.

It's the hight of rudeness to walk into someone's living room and take a dump in the comfy chair.

I recall, on another comics Forum, there was a 'no handles' rule. Someone came in with the handle "Remy Lebeaux" and said he had some concerns about the rule.

It was pointed out to him that this was like someone walking into your living room, seeing the No Smoking sign, lighting up, and then saying "you know, I've some concerns about this No Smoking thing."

At the end of the day, this is surely Peter's board, and we are guests. An element of courtesy to your host surely goes along with that.

Yes, they should be booted.

No. Absolutely, unequivocally, no.

Freedom of speech, to be sure, is a good and noble ideal, and I applaud your support for it. You have no obligation, however, to provide a venue for said speech.

You have every right, (and I would argue a responsibility) to exclude those whose apparent intention is to annoy, irritate, and disrupt rather than provide a meaningful contribution to what is, essentially, a specific-purpose private venue.

>My father once told me that you can't argue with an idiot, or the closed minded. and clearly that's what your dealing with here but the web is supposed to be free and for everyone, learn to tune them out and forget them...

Oh I dunno. One can cetainly argue with them, but all that really results in that is becoming winded for no good purpose. ;)

Do these insults, slams, etc serve any purpose. Is the poster's intent to simply antagonize or to present his/her point of view which others may be missing due to his words. That's the real difference between a flamer and a poor communicator attempting to talk, IMO.

As a counselor, I find it facinating to watch some people online act out in ways that their passive aggressive personalities will never allow them to do when face to face.

Short answer.... I'd look at the intent. (Has said perpetrator been informed or warned about his unwelcome behavior?)

I vote yes.

It's your board and you have every right to ban anyone for any reason you wish. Doing so will, however, look hypocritical given your previous stances and give easy fodder to those who will the attack you for this inconsistancy.

Since the people in question are, at best, semi coherent in their arguments and succeeding only in making those opposed to some of your opinions look bad, I see no upside for you in banning them, as opposed to the obvious downside.

Anyway, what the hell? Some goofy nerd who hides behind a made up name calls names and we can't take it??? Why should anyone spend a minute worrying about what someone you don't even know thinks? It's not like you even respect the guy. Hell, I love PAD's writing and I suspect we'd have a great time throwing back a few brews at the loacl pub (if he's into that sort of thing) but the fact that he disagrees with 9/10 of my political beliefs keeps me awake at night NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT. So why should anyone bother with what mommasboy@hotmail.com thinks?

Take a couple of toughenups and call me in the morning, as my granpappy would say when we came running into the house with broken bones and retinal detachments.

Incidentally, it seems like at least a few posters are really confused on what "yes" or "no" actually means in the vote. Who designed this--the same lady in Florida who came up with the butterfly ballot?

I say yes, it would conflict with your standard on Free Speach. It's not hard to ignore the accoassional assholes. Read the Byrne Boards to see how something like that can get out of hand.

If I'm an offender, I vote "NO!" :D

Actually, I vote "no" anyway, simply because I don't feel it's my decision to make. However, since this is basically "your house", if you choose to evict people, that won't hurt my feelings any. ;)

Gah! I meant "YES" both times. Some how I got my wires crossed, where "yes = boot them" and "no = don't boot them". 9.9

This isn't a free speech issue. If some clod on this board wants to make an ass of himself, there's a plethora of places on the net for him to do it.

Does he have the right to boot? Yes. It strikes me as somewhat similar to the earlier thread about For Better and For Worse. I don't post often and extensively enough to really get irritated, but this is Peter's soapbox and we get to respond. Should he boot? Only as a last option. Get this person's attention, and let them know that what they're doing is bothering anough people to bring it to the manager's attention.

I abstain.

Qualified "No". I don't think disallowing abusive or insulting posts conflicts with free speech. As others have said, this board is

essentially a courtesy you provide; in such a setting, in any setting really, people shouldn't have the expectation that they have a right to impose their poor behaviour and lack of courtesy on everyone else. Your site, your standard.

Having said that, I personally don't feel it's necessary to ban folks. Yet. Maybe it's coming, but there don't seem to be many people here who only wish to troll and irritate people. Those few who go too far look to me like they're attacking and insulting people out of frustration with their own incoherence and inability to sway others.

Not to excuse them, but unlike with a physical presence in a store, I can just scroll past these posts and ignore them.

Though I do find that I sometimes have to scroll... and scroll... and scroll. And that the longer rants can interfere with the flow of discussion.

I do find the more strident (sometimes offensive) posts to still be of some value; if nothing else, they're a really interesting look into how people of a certain stripe think... or don't think.

If it does become necessary to remove some posts, it might be an idea to place them in a "trash bin" or "hall of infamy" section or whatnot. Serves two purposes: it partially defangs the censorship concern, and it also lets others look and see just what constitutes "crossing the line".

PAD,

it's your site. Do with it what you will.

I don't have any trouble skipping over the problem posts.

I have to say, if they're not offering anything constructive (having "different" opinions is fine, coming in and saying F* you you bunch of *** because they disagree with them is not), boot 'em.

Wow - you go away for a night and there's a ton of posts on your future.

The guy he's talking about is me. PAD, I disagree that all of my posts were insulting with no purpose but to insult. I found your quick uninformed comments ignorant. I did not insult your writing or anything else. I said you were ignorant when it came to politics - that's all. Then you called me a moron and the name calling began.

If you read every one of my posts I make points about Iraq and Clinton etc. You may not agree with them, but so be it.

I think it is ridiculous to try and ban me for this. I did not harass YOU with the intent of just harassing YOU. I've had plenty of back and forth with other people on this board. It's not my fault that most people are to the left and the conservative voices are few and far between.

I apologize for the stir it has made, but worry not. I will not take it to that level if it bothers you that much. In fact, I won't be posting much anymore.

I disagreed with you and when I used the same venom that you use against the President you are running to try and ban me. I'm terribly dissappointed in what I thought the board was about.

I guess my vote wouldn't count becuse I obviously couldn't be objective about this subject - but I truly think you are mistakened if you are saying all my posts were just to annoy and harass. That's absurd. They were all political.

They are supposed to add to the quality of the board. As it stabnds - my posts on the "AMerican Intelligence" blog obviously sparked your post of the "Quote" Blog. So to say I am not adding to the board is strange.

But again - I am sorry it's seemed to offend you in this way. DOn't worry - I won't be posting anymore.

Later,

Udog

I have to vote "No". Free speech does not apply in all cases. People are free to say anything they want. They are not free to enter your home to do so or enter a place of business and do it with impunity. They can stand on the sidewalk and shout it out all they want. This forum is your "home" on the web, and as such, you have no obligation to give them a platform.

I don't really know too much about this as I'm only an occasional visitor but I would think the Litmus test should be is this person a fan of your work?

If he hates everything you've done or offers non-constructive/ insulting criticism then give 'em the boot.

If he is a fan who occasionally gripes about some of your work and expresses enjoyment regarding other examples of your work it should be fine, should't it?

People who are not in some way PAD fans probably shouldn't be here, people who are somewhat bitchy PAD fans should be fine in my opinion.

I suggest going directly beyond banning and directly to finding a way to pull the Hulk off the comics page and to life. Then he can go to each troll's home and start smashing.

On a more serious note, people who are openly insulting only damage the whole.

I can understand and accept constructive criticism, well thought out arguments, and differing opinions. I will never tolerate personal attacks. Ever.

Killfile 'em all and let Bill Gates sort 'em out.

[delurk] As others have said before, this is your board. You pay for it. If someone pees on the carpet, you should be able to kick 'em out without guilt.

Although, if you continue to have severe misgivings about that step, perhaps a series of posted rules, i.e., "no name-calling", "check your spelling", "no replies longer than 'x' lines" might help change the signal-to-noise ratio some.

In answer to your question, I vote "Yeah, boot 'em."[/delurk]

There are those of us who hold PAD-works to a higher standard because he's among our favorite writers.

I agree 2000%. In fact, Peter David is among the many writers that influenced my decision to want to write comic books. I haven't been published, but I'm plotting and scripting some things I hope get published.

Anyway, to get to the topic at hand. I too believe in free speech. However, there is a fine line between free speech and downright insulting behavior that breaks the balls of all of those people that merely wish to talk about the topics posted in blogs. I say get them off the island.

JHL

Speaking from past experience here - Warren Ellis kicked me out of his Delphi forums simply because in a thread discussing what we liked/didn't like about certain titles, I said I didn't like Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men.

His prerogative, sure, just like it's yours Peter. He pays for the fourm after all. But I wasn't berrating or hassling anyone. I simply said I didn't like Morrison's run on New X-Men and why.

I'd say, yeah, kick him/her out if they're hassling people and just being difficult for being difficult's sake. But don't kick anyone off for disagreeing with someone else's thought or opinion.

Clear as mud?

DOn't worry - I won't be posting anymore.

Good. Based on the comments on this thread you wouldn't be anyways.

Forums that are moderated properly are far better places to be than those that aren't.

To answer your question Peter, I think that it would be wrong not to let people have their say on the board. If someone disagrees with you well everyone has an opinion on something. Unless it becomes akin to screaming FIRE in a crowded theatre then let the village idiots speak.

That's just my opinion I could be wrong.

Regards:

WSJ3

I say get rid of the trolls. I love conflicting opinions, but if someone can't express it without being obnoxious, give 'em the old heave ho.

I actually recall you dealing with this matter in a "Supergirl" issue involving Steel.

I vote 'no'. Let them stay.

The Internet is a public forum, as are your boards. Even the fools can get in, sadly. Once this particular door gets open, how soon before anybody who says anything that disagrees with you and your opinion gets booted? Don't open the door.

It's me foilk and I am not going to post in any more political blogs as a result. I will post in this topic since it deals with me and I think you should all be aware of something.

I NEVER put up posts that just insulted other posters and/or PAD.

It startd simply with me DISAGREEING with PAD'S flippant comments about Bush which he's done COUNTLESS times. I then made the point that lots of CELEBRITIES do the same thing and often expose how ignorant they are. I find this kind of political spouting ala Alec Baldwin to be very arrogant etc. I will not go through everything here - but if you'd like read through the "American Intelligence" Blog and the "Can I quote you?" blog and look at UDOG posts.

I was in no way similar to the guy that shows up at PAD's signing and berates him. First off, I am on PAD's site - obviously I wouldn't be here if I thought he was a total arse. I haven't ripped him for writing etc. I read his posts on TV and life and ejnjoy them - it is when he goes political that I think he is being a fool and a blowhard.

I posted all quotes showing how hypocritcal his positions were based on DEM statements. Etc. It led to his "QUote" Blog.

I am not the infantile poster who uses obscenities and insults and makes NO POINT. Every one of my posts made a point, you may or may not agree with it. Most do not b/c there seems to be more liberals on the board than conservatives. I wouldn't post on a board full of conservatives because there'd be no point to make!

It wasn't until PAD called me a "moron" that I got a little more colorful - but I didn't use obscenities etc ever. Each post - even if it insulted PAD back in kind, was illustrating a MEDIA, POLITICAL and/or CELEBRITY point.

I also garned many posts back and I learned from them and it kept debate going.

I've been on GAMEFAQS and other boards where there are flamers and trolls. I did not do that.

I obviously ruffled feathers - but I didn't realize if you responded back to PAD with the same barbs he uses on teh President you'd be booted off the board.

And as far as free speech goes - yes, there are limits. If I crossed PAD's limits - I am scared for his view of free speech.

AS for the analogy that this is his HOME on the web. That would be akin to leaving your front door open with an open mic inviting all in and then be mad that someone says something you don't agree with and having the COPS come and boot them out.

There was never any need for that. I did not post my email so i wouldn't receive nasty emails from other posters, but PAD could have WARNED me in some way.

If someone is warned and continues to be a jerk - then so be it - get him off. I never did that.

PAD could've pposted an entry or BLOG to say "You've crossed my line - be warned etc . . ." I would have stopped. I even stopped last night b/c too many people were getting caught up in the personal wars instead of the points.

PAD didn't do this and I think it would've been a fair first step.

Many people are confusing me with some past posters or as someone who merely jumped on the board and insulted Joe Q Public - never happened that way.

I disagreed with PAD and pegged him as a blowhard when it came to POLITICS and that's it. PAD called me a "moron" and then it sunk a level - but never staryed from each post having something to do with CLinton, Iraq, Bush etc. . .

Now if you want advice - here goes: Use a system like the GameFaqs board does where you have to register to post. If someone breaks the rules - then they are suspended and I think it links to an IP address and they can't rejoin etc . . . That should cure problems here.

But that's assuming thee's someone else causing a problem. Since this seems to be just because of me, UDOG, well you neednt't bother. I don't know what the limits are so I'm simply going to refrain from posting on his POLITICAL blogs.

If you disagree with PAD on his political blogs and throw back the same venom he unleashed on the Pres - and he instead of warning me is scrambling to have me banned somehow - I am reminded of communist regimes etc. I won't bother posting then.

And I apologize to PAD and others if they thought I was only there to insult them. I would've liked PAD to back up his veiws and/or explain them and it really never happened. THere were posters who put much more thought in the other side's point of view that was interesting to read.

So I only took issue with PAD's political commentary. And I don't say he doesn't have a right to say it - but someone says you are being arrogant etc - respond - don't BAN.

So maybe going the Gamefaqs route would be an improvement. I still think there should be some warning - as I had no idea that while I was posting i was causing PAD to work behind the scenes with others to find a way to ban me.

I didn't leave an avenue for a private message - so I've now left an email if PAD or someone else wants to email me and explain what is going on or give me a warning or simply hash it out and come to an understanding.

But I promise - you will not see me posting on the political site in this fashion b/c it seems you can't call certain people to task. it seems that there is to be one voice on that board and if you too loudly proclaim something else and respond in kind to insults you are in danger of being banned.

That's not my idea of an Internet web blog board.

Later,

Udog

Sorry I put a typo in my email. That must really have the people who hated my typo riddled posts, laughing.

Well I fixed it.

Later,

Udog

Peter,

It's your board so ultimately I say you should do what makes you happy. If, when you log onto the board each day, you dread seeing this person's posts then by all means he should go.

If they post with the sole intent of being obnoxious and annoying, then why should we put up with it? Having an open forum for ideas is vastly different than having an open forum either for tantrums or for children who just speak with their ears closed.

(This would be "yes". Feel free to vote them off the island, out of the house, or as just one more person you're not going to kiss in front of the cameras.)

I have to agree with most people on the board that it is your decision if you want to ban someone or not, but I have the feeling I come to a different conclusion than most people: from reading your entry, I got the feeling that you don't really want to ban anyone, but that you have a responsibility to the people that come here to keep your livingroom clean, so to speak.

Do what you believe is right (damn that sounds corny, doesn't it?). My personal opinion is that if someone comes here solely to troll, he should be banned. But, as some other have said, I don't feel that any of the posters has reached that stage - while Udogs posts certainly haven't been in the most constructive form (what with the name-calling and all - IIRC, PAD's post where he called you a moron was a direct response to a post of yours calling him a moron), he has taken part in the on-topic argument.

Ultimately, do what you want PAD. If you feel that someone really has lost it and you don't want his venom anymore, ban him. But if you don't have a problem with someone making a fool of himself, and would only ban them to protect the sentiments of some of the other posters, let them stay and let the other posters change the channel.

Just my 2 (Euro)cents

Benjamin Gaede

I vote No, it does not conflict with your commitment to free speech (unless of course, you personally feel it does).

As you and many others have stated, it's your site.

If someone's on your physical private property, you don't even have to give them a reason--if you want them gone, they're gone. I think it should be the same way on the net.

I vote no.

This is, for all intents and purposes, your back yard, PAD. We're here because you're throwing the equivilent of a party. While here, you have made it clear that educated, polite opinions are welcome - even if they are opinions of dissent.

But people have crashed the party and are on your back yard pissing on things, burping loudly, yelling out, etc. etc.

As long as it is clear that you aren't kicking out people who disagree with you, but instead just people who are disruptive, have free reign as far as I'm concerned.

I vote YES. I find some comments aiken to lighting farts, but this is far from anyone's home. PAD, you can't protect everyone from being offended here. Some of your political views make me want to hurl, but I would be upset if I could not read them. If the buck stops with you, then who are you protecting? You? and those who think like you? I admired the time someone made a very tasteless joke about 9/11 and a call was made to delete it, but you stated these things must be talked out. I know many are stating this isn't about free speech, but what is it then? If you write about what's on your mind and invite others to do the same and then because the comments are harsh, off-topic we want to vote them off? I was in on the whole political talk and had some back and forth with Wildcat, if he called me a name (which he didn't he was polite) I would have ignored him, period the end. If people are annoyed by scrolling down further, well, get over it. It's funny that a site with a left leaning the majority of votes are "no". If UDOG goes, well I guess this isn't the site for me either I'm gone.(which I'm sure some are saying, good that's two of them) I know this quote is not an exact fit, but it may make some think before they vote.

"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niemoller

It's real simple, it's your board and you don't have to allow *any* comments.

Establish general guidelines/Terms of Service. "You can participate as long as you behave in a respectful/civil manner." Establish a 3-strike rule.

I vote yes---I've rarely seen such posters on this blog-board but as you are the webmaster, it is not only your right but your responsibility to get people off this forum who insist on using it simply to insult and antagonize people elsewhere--such people do so on the net because it's safe and they won't suffer repercussions (such as being told SHUT UP A$$H*LE!!!) but they are looking for an anger outlet. Some of these people may only have picked you as a target because----well---you're here.

And they will take it personally, but so what? It's YOUR site and your right. (OH NO!!! I'M TALKING IN RHYYYYYME!!!!!)

BTW my 'Yes' vote was to toss the trolls--so I meant 'no'.

Nice try Udog, but we all know he's talking about me (unless he's been building this for a while, I don't recall seeing any of your posts before these...)

I see Craig-ee still loves to insult with impunity...

It is your board. I think you should first give someone a warning just in case they don't know they are behaving in such an obnoxious way. If they continue to be obnoxious then by all means get rid of them.

Neil

P.S. I can't see a practical way of getting rid of anyone as they can always post under another name and if people need to give a valid email address or something, they can always get a new free one.

I vote no, for the plain and simple reason that (and has been mentioned before) I am coming into "your place"...and am allowed to dissent, but need to do so in a respectful manner. If I cannot be respectful of the host who is allowing me in, I should not be shown the respect of being allowed in here.

People changing their yes votes to no votes is exactly the reason stupid laws get passed you know.

As my on topic comment now, I think the Boot'ems are right. I think it's amazing that a guy with as much on your plate actually takes time daily to write to us about your day, your thoughts and whatnot... if you don't like it here you'll stop. Then where would we be?

If someone pisses you off, tell him to go post on the DCU boards where no one will see it. I like this site and I think it's kind of a waste of bandwidth to even think "should I" on your own site.

So let me just enter my vote as (checking the hanging Chad carefully...) No.

Peter,

While I don't agree with Bush-bashing that happens on this site, I do believe that you are the ultimate arbiter of what is posted on this site. That is, barring obnoxious posts (or posters) from this site does not contradict your belief in freedom of speech. It's not up to you to provide a forum for anybody in the name of free speech.

Now, if we were to notice that most or all of the posts were slanted one way or the other, your credibility would be in question. But the very fact that you posed this question demonstrates that your credibility will not be in question.

Tom

PAD,

This is your board, you pay for it, and it's therefore your call. You aren't Congress (nor even Congreff) and you aren't passing laws about anyone. These folks have plenty of outlets to spew whatever they wish to, nothing you can do will affect their ability to get their opinions heard.

If someone is getting in their way because of their actions, I see nothing wrong with giving them the boot.

Londo, hoping it's not me

My vote is no. I don't necessarily think you should boot all offenders (I recommend a case-by-case analysis -- one person may cross a line that should keep them away permanently, while another might lapse and devolve his line of thinking out of frustration with another poster's seeming thick-headedness), but it's certainly not a conflict of your dedication to the Freedom of Speech. It was said above that being afforded rights requires responsibility, and flagrant abuse of those rights ultimately damages the rights themselves.

Even if this were a government-owned site, there exist solid reasons for the deletion of posts. There are forms of speech which violate law despite the First Amendment, so the absolute can't be fairly expected of you.

You should certainly add a page here delineating standards by which you would consider a post ripe for deletion -- you've always seemed pretty comfortable with vulgarity, but there are things you've made it clear are unwelcome here, and a short list of them might not be a bad idea.

I vote "Yes" for now.

But find out how to ban them anyway, then e-mail the person(s) in question with a warning that they are hindering the enjoyment of other users, and yourself, PAD, the guy this site is for. If his/her/their actions continue, and you get more complaints from different people, then ban them.

Their right to free speech doesn't mean you're entitled to give them a forum. Let them get their own website.

I haven't had time to read all the comments upthread yet, but as for me ...

For now, I've got to vote that yes, it's a conflict.

The individual in question (assuming we're thinking of the same one) is certainly a drain on the gene pool -- but he's also someone who can be and should be ignored. (Yes, I've been terrible about doing so. That's about to change.)

My sense is that he's mostly getting off on all the attention and the ability to piss people off. I vote we change that -- if we do, he'll either (a) become more constructive in an effort to make people talk to him, (b) get frustrated and leave, or (c) get so outrageously abusive that booting him would be a lot more justifiable.

My other thought: is there a way to limit someone's contributions without blocking them? If there were to be some limit of X posts per day (hour, week, whatever), that's probably something most of us could deal with without breaking a sweat, but it'd take the wind out of the sails of those who are posting here just to hear themselves type.

Just my two cents. Obviously it's your site and I understand the frustration -- but I think booting him at this juncture might do some of your points more harm than good.

TWL

As a semi-lurker, I vote "no." Any forum, newsgroup, mailing-list or thingamagig like this one comes down to be one thing only - a get-together.

It's a place for people to discuss things brought up by the person who runs it. Now if you were at a party and someone came into the room, dropped his pants, peed on the cat, punched someone in the face, and then demanded the right to be heard over everyone else . . . well, you call the cops and shut them down.

No one has the right to come on a personal forum and demand the right to stay there. This isn't about censorship or "freedom of speech" or anything of that sort - it's merely that of keeping the party going without everyone worried that what they say will immediately be turned into a 20-page rant by some jerk who doesn't realize that no one is interested.

Short form: No, I don't think it compromises a commitment to free speech.

Longer form: I'm at work at don't have time to read through all the responses. So, I'll just go along with "what Donner said." The right to free speech is not the guarantee of a free (as in costless) forum for your ideas. It's your website and you are the final arbiter of what can be published on it. If you feel that these people should go, then I don't think that it would compromise any commitment to free speech.

OTOH Mr. David, it seems that you yourself may not feel that way. I can't think of many reasons that you would post such a question if you didn't have doubts about the whole prospect. As it's your site, you will have to make the decision that will satify you the most. The only other reason I can think of as to why you post that question is to serve as a hint to certain posters that their privileges are in danger of being revoked.

If there was a way to post some standards of conduct on the site -- giving an idea of what sort of activity would get one booted -- I'd do that.

However, it is your site. If there are folks that are "obnoxious and insulting (and apparently come here solely to irritate people since they clearly don't like the opinions of the vast majority of posters)" then I'd get rid of them. From past discussions here, I'm secure you won't use this to censor or reduce comments from those who disagree with you.

Freedom of Speech does not require you to provide the distribution of anyone's speech any more than it requires Marvel to publish my new series about Dr. Tony Thompson who, when angered, turns into a large breaded veal patty.

You have the right to decide what the goal of this board is, and to choose not to include posts that are apt to disrail it.

(Given the setup of this board, I'm not sure how you'd lock people out. Me, I've always hoped for a bulletin board system that would, instead of making it so someone can't post, instead makes their posts secretly private so that they can see it, but no one else has to. That way, they won't immediately know they're locked out and start trying to post under a different name.)

Who designed this--the same lady in Florida who came up with the butterfly ballot?

Okay, Bill, now you've had me agreeing with and chuckling at one of your comments twice in as many days.

Given how well our political beliefs tend to (not) coincide, this is quite scary. Stop it at once. :-)

TWL

Eh, it's your board, do what you want with it. You're not limiting free speech by kicking people off here. They still have every right to go to other message boards and say what they want. Heck, they can even start their own website and have all the posting they want on whatever subject they want.

Now, if you were going in and editing what those people were posting, I'd have a problem. But out and out banning, go for it.

I vote yes. PAD's house, PAD's rules.

I have no problem with a moderation system that boots off offenders but YES, it does contradict your stance on free speech.

Damn, the ballot was misleading, and I voted for Buchanan. Ah, well. I vote PAD throw the bums out.

Abstain.

It's completely your call, PAD. Your board. Rest assured, though, it's no even close to being a free speech issue, so there'd be no hypocrisy involved should you decide to moderate/block certain posts. This is your virtual living room, and you have the right to disinvite whomever you wish for whatever reason.

For my part, I simply scroll through many of the reliable idiots who show up here from time to time. On most threads, that's maybe 10 % or the posts. On the political threads, it can shoot up as high as 30% and, yes, that's tiring. But no one dies, either way.

I really think of it this way: if you want us to take our shoes off before walking on your carpet, that's your call. If you want to say some people have feet that are too hairy and smelly to be allowed in at all, that's also your call. No one's right to free expression will be diminshed should you decide to bar certain people from your private website.

The choice will always end with PAD. I don't see him editing anyone.

As far as troll go. Maybe you change this format so the names come out on top of the posts.

I mean, I know who's rantings to ignore all on my own. If I see there name I skip to the next post and read from there.

See it all has to do with free will. I don't have to read the insulting posts. Sometimes I read up to the insulting part, but after 1-2 posts from the trolls I can figure out who's on my personal ignore list.

Somtimes though I like to read their funny posts.

Please don't make me go; I promise to be good!

But seriously, I think there's a big difference between pissing on the rug and pissing on the virtual rug. If somebody is harrassing you and your guests (as I suspect you view fans at a booksigning) then, hell yes, eject them soundly. In cyberspace, we're pretty far away from reality, and what people say really is just words. With the exception of those who write actual threats, let the obnoxious, irrelevant and annoying posters stay.

Of course, it's your board. Good Luck, Solomon!

Your board, your rules. There's such a thing as being too arbitrary - then most people will be run off and no one will post.

This would be bad.

There's also such a thing as having TOO light a hand, and letting some posters run roughshod over others. I don't see that happening per se here, but it has happened on other boards I've been a part of... and it's a pity when it happens.

I repeat: I *don't* think that's happening here.

You might look at phbb instead... several boards I frequent are running it. I don't know costs, etc, but it allows for registration, etc etc.

I am a recent reader and, 'til now, a lurker.

Upon reading of PAD's dilemma, I came to the conclusion that, like many before him, he's fallen prey to one of the classic blunders. (No, not the "land war in Asia" thing... No, not that "death and a Sicilian" thing, either...)

Freedom of Speech in no way means Freedom from Consequence.

It is a noble and wonderful thing to be committed to the ideal of Free Speech. But it is ridiculous to assert that people should be able to say things without consequence of any kind. Those that insist that we should are wrong, plain and simple.

I will happily listen to anything anybody wants to say. But I'll be damned if I'm forbidden from passing judgment upon them based on that speech. I absolutely reserve the right to say they're stuffed plumb full of wild blueberry muffins. And, if I disagree strongly enough with their viewpoint, I reserve the right not to be forced to interact with them - to banish them from my personal sphere. I don't want to be forced to listen to them. I don't want to be forced to conduct commerce with them. I have the right to create whatever small hardship my failure to do these things causes them.

Mr. David, your commitment to the ideal of Free Speech is completely fulfilled by allowing any and all to visit this site and post their comments without prior vetting. That honors your ideal. That you should reserve the right to ban people, for any reason whatsoever, in no way compromises that ideal. Since while they have spoken, they are not automagically protected from the consequences of their speech, including the far-less-than-Draconian "ultimate censure" of banning from this site. Heck, if you wanted, you could even follow them around the internet, getting them banned from other sites, too. That is your right, keeping in mind that these actions are also subject to the judgment of others, and your "speech" would be subject to consequence as well.

I had more to say, but I realized I was slipping off-topic.

Freedom of Speech is not the same as Freedom from Consequence, and I think we can all agree that a world without consequence would be a poorer world for that lack.

Just my small change,

Bern

I vote that if you want to put the time into booting the trolls off, go for it. But to be honest, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I haven't seen really egregious talk. That doesn't mean it's not there- it just means I didn't see it because I scrolled past it.

Throwing "free speech" into the issue is a distraction. This board is not free- either you or Glenn are paying to host and maintain the board. The forum is here to not only provide us entertainment; it's your Internet representation. Your reputation can be aversely affected by someone posting irresponsibly here. So I wouldn't have any problem with you removing trollish comments.

Umm....

Glenn and Kathleen get to stay, don't they?

Normally I'd read the entire thread before responding, but I don't have all day to wade throug 106 posts. :) So bear with me if I repeat points made above.

I vote no, you wouldn't be contradicting a committment to free speech.

First off, the guarantee of free speech is solely a guarantee that the government won't muck with your right to speak, not that all private individuals and institutions have to extend the same consideration.

Second, if you find that to be splitting hairs, note also that "Disturbing the peace" is still legally actionable, and I'm unaware of any successful challenge to such laws on Constitutional grounds. In other words, the limits on free speech to include "not being a loud and public ass" just as they cover "not shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theater".

Third, by banning them from this board (which you might find technically difficult...asswipes have an astonishing ability to scrounge up new accounts to get around ID bans and sitebans), you're not abridging their right to insult you and your fans. They're perfectly capable of setting up ihatepeterdavid.com and screaming all they want. The right to free speech is NOT the right to a captive audience.

If it was my name above this website: foul language and/or true bigotry/hatred, yes. Just don't agree with the other person's viewpoint, no.

Either way, we're here as your guests to begin with. It's your island Peter, you make the call.

Yer choice, but my vote is yes, let them stay. I, like most, just ignore them. However, if I would ever get "attacked" here, I'll exercise my right too and stop posting and become a fulltime lurker.

Hopefully you want just get the sh**s of it altogether and just shut the blog down,I hate people who ruin it for others.

Though I don't post much I do love stopping by, thanks for what you do PAD...

I'd be in favor of voting off complete trolls, who are here to insult and degrage with no other contributions.

Note that that's different from someone who can express a different opinion, articulate it well, and not get personally insulting while doing it.

Somone disagreeing with your politics is one thing. Someone disagreeing and calling you names and insulting your mother while doing it is quite another.

That was "WON'T shut down the blog" not "want", in my previous comment...

Free speach only applies to public places. This website is prviately owned, so it is within the rights of the owners to determine what can and cannot be said.

PAD wrote: So the question is: Does throwing people out of this website because they're obnoxious and insulting (and apparently come here solely to irritate people since they clearly don't like the opinions of the vast majority of posters) present a conflict with my commitment to free speech?

Well, it's your Web site and thus your call, in my opinion. I look at it as if this is your house and you are having a party every day. There may be instances where a particular party guest needs to leave, but you, as the host, have to be the one to decide.

On the other hand, if you continuously surround yourself with people who all have your same biases and viewpoints, you may as well be talking with yourself. Personally, I find such a situation boring and unenlightening.

Russ Maheras

FWIF, PAD, I've been reading for months and you seem to have incredible patience for the level of crap postings that you are talking about. So I vote yes, boot anyone whom you feel that strongly about, not just 'cause it's your forum to control, but because I think you're capable of handing that awesome responsibility wisely and won't resort to silencing people on their first offense or just because they disagree with you.

Not allowing specific people to post here does not curb anyone's right to free speech, because the right to free speech guarantees only that; it does include a right to any particular forum, nor does it include a right to an audience for the speaker. The environment here is yours to control as you see fit.

BTW, I also think that the very fact that you brought this topic up for public discussion shows that you're not trying to infringe anyone's free speech.

I say, it's your board and if someone is being offensive, you have every right to dismiss them from it. Their freedom is speech is not infringed, only their right to say it here. (After all, if a newspaper doesn't publish my letters to the editor, no one would call that an infringement.) Lord knows that there are many, many places to rant and rave on the Net.

Problem is, there's no way that I know of to stop anyone from switching names, etc.

Oh, and kudos to everyone who posted to debate this for debating it in a rational manner. This blog/board has distinguished itself by rarely letting controversial topics lead to all-out flamewars. Only Tony Isabella's board has been more congenial in this regard.

I vote no, because I trust you to use the power with discretion. (As others have said, making it clear where the line is in advance would be a good idea; so would issuing warnings first.)

I'm going to have to reluctantly vote to let the disagreeable people post.

I don't like what they say, but I've never felt that anything was well-served by shutting anyone up.

Besides, if I find them really obnoxious, my "page down" button works really well.

I vote no. Simply because as this is PAD's place, he owns it, and it is up to him wether someone is invited in or not.

But I agree that issuing someone a warning that they are being inapproiate (insulting, trolling, etc) would be fair.

It seems like some people posting have missed a HUGE chunk of what PAD wrote at the top here.

some folks have been e-mailing me privately and asking me to make certain individuals on this board go away, arguing that having them around is akin to having a guy walk into the middle of your living room and lighting his own farts.

It doesn't sound like to me that PAD is asking this becasue HE himself wants this poster to go away. He's being asked by the GUESTS on this site to make said poster go away.

It's your site Peter, we are just guests here. Personally, I love debate and watching some of the people here state their views clearly and accurately and at times, it has made me reconsider my position on subjects. I have found that most people who have called you ignorant or uninformed either haven't really shown me anything that proves their statement or have misunderstood your point. That and twisting your words to fit what they want it say so they can argue the other way.

It all comes down to this, it's YOUR site Peter. You have the ability to say who can or cannot post. If your guests are asking someone to leave, as a host, it's your call as to whether or not you want to listen to them.

Peace,

Larry

Free speech does not include coming to your site to express their opinions. They can start their own site or go elsewhere. Please feel free to boot anyone who is obnoxious or disruptive and don't have any qualms about doing so. I'm sure you'll use this power sparingly and wisely.

Peter,

I say vote them off the island. Maintaining civility of discourse is a good thing.

Dennis

I vote "no" and it's an easy call. I'm all for free speech-- heck, I used to edit an underground newspaper. But there's a pretty clear difference between arguing contrary positions and just being a jackass to piss people off. Nobody has a "right" to post on your board anymore than they have a right to speak in your living room. They certainly have a right to get a board of their own, of course. But it's not at all unreasonable to demand that the people who post to your board adhere to minimal standards of courtesy, so that this board can be an enjoyable place for you and fans of your work (which is the whole idea behind the board, after all).

There are no guidelines posted on this website like the ones you'd find at most boards. I think when someone can't be held to certain standards then you are just giving them a ticket to do whatever they wan't.

People - I am the one that kindled PAD's fire and I feel the record should be set straight.

For one thing: I never insulted people's mother, used obscenities or trolled etc. ..

People think I started name calling PAD as well and as such should be banned. It didn't happen quite that simply.

I said that his flip, insulting remarks about the President that are never backed up is moronic and being a blowhard etc. I'm not wading through hundreds of posts to re-post it - but you get the point.

I was making the point that celebrities, of which I believe PAD is one, often spout off politically and do it in a patronizing way etc. . . I also think Alec Baldwin is guilty of often looking like a moron and a zealout when he goes political, but I do NOT think that ALec Baldwin as a WHOLE is a moron. Same with PAD.

I never just went around with a vendetta at PAD. Look at all other blogs - I don't come in and simply BASH PAD. Never. I was making a point about celebrity and politics.

PAD never came back and answered or justified his flip insulting remarks that he's been making for a LONG time in reagrds to this adminsitration. yes, it is his right - but is it wrong to point out that somone begins to look foolish when they don't back things up.

So calling what he is doing arrogant moronic etc - is now being construed as I am just bashing PAD for the sake of personally bashing him and with intent to annoy or ahrass. Not true - and if you read my posts, you'd see that.

then PAD eventually calls me a "moron" with "no balls" etc. . . I eventually told him that he doesn't make any rational arguments in politics and is just being a blowhard and to "Stick to Klingons, tubby"

yes - that was an insult - and perhaps over the line - but what IS the line? you can't do that?

How would I know the line if the numerous other posters CONSTANTLY insult one another and me? I've been called a brat and worse - I'm not crying. I guess it is okay to insult one as a pinhead, brat, jerk, idiot - if it's someone on the left saying it to someone on the right. In other words, someone who agrees with PAD. PAD seems fine to let others do the insulting for him, I guess. But if you insult PAD it's wrong and should be banned.

Besides, I never just insulted him as a troll etc.. I always posted points about Clinton, Robert Toricelli, the CIA, 9/11, Bush and celbrity in politics.

My posts prompted others to post back and I was impressed with the academic research going into some of the posts - although I wouldn't necessarily agree with their conclusion. Many of the posters were doing what PAD never does and that is back up a point with facts.

Many of you don't really understand anlysis of a situation, though and that includes PAD. This situation is NOT like the book signing guy who is ranting.

It also is not akin to PAD'S house and he can kick people out. Sure, he can - but if he's concerned about free speech it is a little hypocritical. No rules were ever set out.

No warning was ever given. It was as recent as last night that PAD is claiming I have no balls, all the while he is scurrying to try and find a way to ban me.

I didn't leave an email so a simple post would do or a blog heading warning me.

I even suggested doing a Gamefaqs set up where you COULD ban people - but they at least have rules and Terms of Service and give warnings.

PAD has done nothing of the sort. WHat I did wasn't some infantile flaming, but just opposing points of view filled with the same venomous barbs back at PAD that he casually throws around at the Commander in Chief and others.

To put it to a vote is laughable b/c most on the board are pretty leftist and lean towards PAD's views anyway.

I am glad there are people who think it is wrong and who feel they won't use the board if that's how PAD is going to be.

I haven't been on the board long and maybe there are others that are obviously malicous etc and something needs to be done.

AS for me? You don't need to go to any trouble. All yo had to do was ask me to leave. If you name call me back etc I'm unaware that it's against the rules. If you can't say a curse you don't throw one back at the offender to make the point.

And for the record - I never cursed or threatened and every post had a point.

I've left my email address now so if someone wants to privately hash it out or explain themselves - feel free.

But you should all realize that this board is not the equivalent to PAD's living room. If he wants it private and wants to control who comes in - set up a private chat or a message board that requires email etc. Don't worry about me coming on and posting under a different identity. My views are so polar to most of the posters - it would be obvious and I wouldn't waste my time.

Many think I was trying to stir up stuff for my own ego. Well, how did I self promote in any way? I didn't list my website, bibliography, credntials etc . . . It has nothing to do with my real name or ego.

It's sad that PAD doesn't have the decency to warn me or whoever the offender is, or post something before taking action. He would have found that the problem would be solved. I didn't know I was breaking any rule.

The only thing I was doing was giving PAD back the same kind of rhetoric he brandishes.

I guess as long as you agree with PAD it's okay to say whatever.

Sorry about some of the insults - but I would think someone in the public eye and an artist would have a thicker skin. And if PAD had responded intelligently we could have had a discussion.

Instead others insulted me, PAD chimed in occasionally and all the while is trying to take my voice off the board.

If that's the way the game is - I really don't care to play.

Some speculate I am whining to stay on the boards. Not true. If this is the way the boards are going to be - then I don't want to be a part of them. It's be nice to have a rule or a warning instead of trying to just silence a point of view surrepticiously.

It seems that most of you have made up their minds and don't want to hear another side. And if someone spouts off and is called to task suddenly there are unwritten rules being broken and action is taken.

I am not saying PAD has to operate fairly like a court of law - but it is actions like the one he's attempting that makes me glad he doesn't make public policy.

Later,

Udog

Wow. That was long.

Anywho, on the subject of trolling: The right to free speech doesn't exonerate a person from the consequences of that speech. I.E., if you call my mom a whore, and I punch you in the face, I'm not violating your free speech, I'm just sticking up for Mom. Similarly, if a person comes to a message forum just to make trouble, it's not violating fee speech to show them the door. So, do what you gotta do.

I vote "yes".

If a person can't agree to disagree and or be rational about it, then it's time to 'thin the herd'.

Peter,

Of course you have the absolute right to leave or remove any posts you feel are intentionally disruptive or malicious. Just as I have the right to boot anyone out of my house who acts the same way. Just because the person is in "cyberspace", they're still playing in your yard, so to speak.

I feel that as long as you are making a decided effort to only weed out those who are being intentionally disruptive, and not removing someone because you think they kinda-might-be-maybe disruptive, then you're ok.

^He isn't "scurrying" or suddenly taking action without warning... he asked for opinions. He hasn't banned anyone, or called anyone out, but after emails from posters is asking for opinions on policy. After which point, presumably there would BE a policy.

All three posts above have been filled with accusations, nasty little comments, and a fair heaping of rudeness. If I had a messageboard, would I want you on it? No. But that would be my choice to make. Do I think that PAD should be banning people? I'm not sure. I'm all for arguments, dissenting opinions, but when that's the sole purpose of coming here, I'm not quite sure I see the point. But, if it's handled in a polite way, okie dokie. There's a difference between saying, "I don't agree with your opinion. I think that... and this is why..." and "That's moronic! You're spouting prattle, and are totally ignorant!" You could say that we should be thick skinned and able to handle it, but why? When did being polite go out of style?

*shrug* My two cents. I come here to read about PAD's work, and laugh at posts.

Add a few more ^^^^s to get my aim back up higher. :)

As someone who has dealt with this exact issue on his own forum, I can only vote NO.

You are not censoring anyone. You are not infringing on their right to free speech. They can build their own website, at their own cost and say whatever the hell they want, including that you suck. This community may have the semblence of being public and open, but the bottom line is that this site and forum is paid for by you (and your advertisers) and it is your name across the top. Just like any "real" community, there has to be a standard against which a person's behavior is measured. Just because this is the net doesn't mean it's a free-for-all.

On a related tangent, Frontline aired a report on the porn industry last night that dealt with the concept of community standards and free speech. Their discussion centered around obscenity, but the basic ideas apply here. If you say something that violates a communities idea of what is acceptable, especially if you do it consistently and do it in such a way that is designed to aggravate people, you open yourself to consequences.

PAD, boot them and don't lose any sleep over it. I vote NO.

Scott E.

PAD's forum, PAD's rules. "Free speech" is a protected right in public, not on a private message board (someone's paying for this, and it's not via taxes).

Posting commnets on a board like this is a priveledge, not a right. Anyone who is disruptive to the conversation does not belong here.

If you really are firm in your resolve to follow the freedom of speech then you cannot throw these people off for saying something that offends other people. On the other hand if you’re all for freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t constitute one of the three unprotected forms of speech (“fighting words”, foul language, or the ever popular yelling fire in a crowded theater sort) then throw the bastards off.

I’m for the later.

I vote No.

Huh. To me, telling the host of this board "Stick to Klingons, tubby" is just way over the line. That one is a no-brainer.

And I certainly think that Peter (and everyone else) is entitled to post their opinions about politics online without being thereby obliged to endlessly debate every person who wanders onto the board and disagrees. We're not reading newspaper columns or books here, these are just posts on a website, and Peter doesn't get paid for them. So why should Peter have to take time away from paid writing to debate everyone who disagrees with him. It's not as though they're ever going to come to consensus, nor are they obligated to try to.

Sorry Michael, but physical assault over words is NOT valid consequences by any strectch of the imagination, it's barbaric mindless violence.

UDog, I suspect a lot of people figure that this is in response to events on the "For Better Or For Worse" thread. You should probably read through that thread before you assume that everyone here is referring to you (especially in reference to trolling).

Interesting post.

Saw something similar to this situation on other boards. In those circumstances the owners of the board removed the offending material and banned the poster. In both circumstances I felt the owners were correct.

One was a personal board. The others were topic-focused. I saw the removed material from the posters' blogs. While they defended their views, even I found them to be quite vitriol.

My opinion? If this person is not contributing anything to your "topic" but seems to be personally attack you because you're YOU, ban them. It's one thing to allow the KKK to march down a street to support racial segregation; it's another to assault people.

All I'll say is this: there's a difference between banning people who disagree with you, and banning people who disagree with you in a tactless, obnoxious, rude, crass, vulgar, or trollish manner.

PAD isn't saying he's going to ban people who disagree with him. He's saying he's going to ban those who express those opinions in an inappropriate or rude manner, with no real motivation other than a desire to cause trouble and be obnoxious.

The whole voting system is kinda confusing, and reading all the "yes" and "no" responses has confused me even further, so my vote is this:

Peter, you should absolutely feel free to ban those who have nothing constructive to add to the debate. It doesn't go against your commitment to free speech, because you're not restricting the opinion, you're restricting the behavior which accompanies that opinion.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, and I don't think Peter does either. But if this is going to be a place of political debate, discourse, and just general discussion about whatever, the debate should be an elevated one, not one dominated by such sentiments as "Bush sucks!" and "Oh yeah, look at Clinton!" There has to be something more substantive in the debate for it to be truly meaningful, thoughtful, and compelling. :)

but, it saddens me to see he's not far removed from the other nuts in Hollywood. Seems to me that you just called him nuts, lumping him with all the "other nuts".

PAD - put as much research in your politics as you do in the Hulk's 42 different personalities and maybe you'd make a little sesne. That was a tad personal, don't you think?

The first statement alone could be taken as you fired the first shot. I know I would point to it. Maybe you should re-read your posts. Maybe no offense was meant, but it might've been taken that way.

I vote no. You are within your rights to ban anyone for whatever reason you see fit. This is your website and you have the right to control content, just as newspapers have the right to choose what comic strips they are going to print.

Peter:

I vote No-kick them off. Why? I rather you spend your time creating new stories than dealing with jerks. Make SOULSEARCHERS monthly.

Well first I am confused - mayeb I am not the one PAD is referring to and I'll have to look at the "For Better or Worse" post but I think it is me.

And LARRY, the quotes you put:

but, it saddens me to see he's not far removed from the other nuts in Hollywood.

and

PAD - put as much research in your politics as you do in the Hulk's 42 different personalities and maybe you'd make a little sesne.

I still don't think they are over the line and should be the spark of banning. If the same banter was thrown at another poster it would doubtfully be such an issue.

I ticked off PAD - but instead of warning me first he went back at me and I've been called "moron", having "no balls" "brat" and lots more and I doubt anyone else is in trouble.

Yes, my words were strong - but I did not insult Peter David the writer - family man etc - this is about celbrity in politics and I made points in those posts.

Apparently the points were not agreeable to a liberal message board. But PAD and others can name call back - then decide name calling is against the (unwritten) rules and then ban ME alone.

look - all you have to do is ASK me to leave and I would. I never did flaming posts to simply troll.

But it seems a bit hypocritical to me. Give a warning etc. And if the words I used were "too strong" and "over the line" then I think the skin on this message board is too thin and venom can only be thrown to the right and not the left.

And if PAD's intellectual honesty is called into question in any way it's an internet jihad.

But if those ARE the standards and rules - then fine - I will leave if asked. I won't stick around if everyone thinks I am an "idiot" a "jerk" etc. I am not going to keep posting if I'm considered an annoyance.

You can't preach to the deaf - so I'm not going to try.

I think there are others who will see this as quite a blow to what they thought the board was.

PAD doesn't HAVE to answer me. That's correct. He doesn't have to take time away from his paid writing. But then again, he only lenghthened the reotrts b/c he DID take the time to respond and NOT do so in a logical debate fashion, but to insult me. So the cycle began.

ANd I am sure he's wasting far more time trying to ban someone than it would have taken to simply ASK to stop or leave etc or explain a point of view.

I don't think I am being unreasonable. If you can't stomach the same kind of retorts people have on TOugh Crowd with Colin Quinn etc then it's not the place I thought it was.

I didn't realize the sensitivity factor here OR that PAD is now an idol of worship to some.

All one has to do is ask. The island that PAD wishes to kick people from is not being invaded by savages. I have my own boat , I understand English (although you may not be able to tell from my typing) and I will go if i am truly not welcomed.

But if you truly believe that I posted NOTHING of relevance or discussion, I think your opposing view is blidning you to true logical and reasoned debate.

We can all say the same thing and we feel smarter - but is that the point of the board?

Later,

Udog

I vote "No."

To put it simply: If people can't follow the rules, they shouldn't be allowed to play the game.

I don't believe it is an unreasonable request to ask that people behave themselves. If they don't, they should expect to be asked to leave (or be thrown out, if all else fails).

My two cents.

Let the @$$holes stay. We recognize them for what they are and respond directly to them at our own risk.

Restricting access to this board to those people who are making active contributions (both positive and negative) doesn't impinge on anyone's right to free speech. In so much as free speech is concerned, a person that is contributing nothing but abuse can take those comments and make them anywhere they like, as long as it's not here.

So my vote is an unequivocal "no." Boot 'em. Even the dimmest person should understand that this is your board and your rules, and that if they don’t conform to a stated standard, you have the right to "refuse service."

I read the board a lot, and I read the comments sometimes. I rarely read them all. Sometimes, when I read a comment it makes me shake my head because what the person wrote was stupid. Sometimes, I shake my head when people brag or try their hardest to be witty.

And I was the one who pointed out that even though you asked people to stop posting about the "Last Thoughts" they did anyway in another thread.

Sometimes, if I felt inclined, I would probably stick up for what I believed in and maybe even send out a few good natured ribs or mild insults to a person.

But starting fights to start a fight? That shouldn't really be tolerated. Sticking up for yourself should. Like that feller who believed that Censorship was EVIIILLLL...I found that thread to be highly amusing and the people who could not handle him I viewed as weak and well, baby-ish.

I don't know, I think "who should be banned" would get very opinionated and might consume the board. And everytime someone sticks up for what they believe in or send out a few insults everyone would cry foul. But no one, not even PAD is above sending out a few good natured (and some not so good) insults and ribs.

Stupidity should be pointed out. And babies should not apply. Back and forth bickering (past one or two replies) should not be tolerated. But all and out banning? I'm not so sure.

But some "trolls" (I guess is the geek term) shouldn't be tolerated. And that is a judgement call that maybe PAD does has to make. But I would have felt a lot better if he decided it on his own and not because of some guy without thick skin's e-mail compaign.

I think there is an answer somewhere between the "either-or" being suggested. Take a look at slashdot, for example. Everyone can post. Not all replies are read by everyone, though... It depends on the reader's "moderation level".

So, everyone still gets to write. If there are readers who don't want to read something that is flamebait, trolling or simply from an individual they don't like, they can set their moderation filter higher.

Trollers still get to write, and you don't have to concern yourself about conflict of interest. Readers still get to read and not feel harrassed. Win-win, eh?

Generally speaking, I disagree with kicking people off of messages boards, etc. as it generally becomes such a technical hassle (yes, moreso than moderating)... Do you kick out IP addresses? If the user is on dial-up, they simple disconnect and re-connect. Voila! New IP address (and some other poor sap using the same ISP ends up being blocked). Do you kick out user names? Voila. New username...

I've generally found that the best way to deal with trolls, etc. is just to ignore them... Even on this long page (160 some comments, when I started reading), it didn't take me long to scroll past ones that were repetitive and/or silly... It doesn't take long for those who are being ignored to either "straighten up and fly right" or simply leave.

Oh, I didn't actually vote, did I? I probably shouldn't, since I rarely read the comments. But, I say, let 'em stay... If it really becomes an issue, set up some sort of filtering/moderation system (again, a la slashdot...)

Most of the time I just lurk here, but I'm popping up to say that if people are abusive in the course of making their comments, kick their asses of the island.

Free speech does not equate being abusvie toward others. Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that is so and don't get that one can disagree strongly without stooping to vile personal attacks.

My suggestion is to have a code of conduct. Many boards ask posters not to make personal attacks and give a definition of what constitutes such behavior. Some give one warning, some to a "three strikes and you're out" heads up. Some boards go as far having different levels of banishment: Two weeks, one month, and forever.

This all may seem like limiting free speech, but as others have pointed out, there are legal limits to free speech. We can't libel someone, we can't yell "fire" when there isn't one, we can't insight people to riot, etc...

There are limits. We just don't like to admit to them or defend them. We tend to think of them as being bad things. But what the heck do people think laws are?

And besides, as a parent, you know that limits have to be set, or your kids will run wild, be unhappy, and often very bad things will happen. And setting limits doesn't mean squashing individuality or differing opinions or halting creativity.

It's a hard thing to do, setting limits, but the health of any society or community depends upon some limits being set and maintained.

That's all I have to say.

Yes

I, too, hold the principle of freedom of speech to be essential.

Regardless, I am an operator (sort of referee) on an Internet chat room devoted to Japan.

When someone shows up and proudly announces

"&$^%* you, Japs"

I have two obvious courses of action:

I can "Tut-tut-tut..." and explain that such uncultured behaviour is frowned upon in a family channel and it would truly be appreciated if he were to temper his language and play nice, pretty please.

Or, I can