First Amendment on the web

[flaja]

To what extent should a moderator/owner of a web forum that is open to the general public for the purpose of discussing politics be allowed to edit posts or ban posters? How much should such web forums be governed by the First Amendment?  Should a poster be banned simply because he expresses an opinion that the owner/moderator or other posters disagree with?

Does anything change when a web forum asks for donations to cover its operating costs?

[Rebel]

The first amendment doesn't apply to a privately-owned web forum. Why? Because I, and another Admin, are responsible for everything you say. If you say something that could harm national security, or otherwise contribute to a crime, they will be coming after myself and Wretched Excess because our names are on the site.

We're very liberal in posting rules here, figuratively-speaking only, but there are boundaries.

[rich_t]

Unless forum owners are part of the government, the 1st amendment doesn't even begin to apply.

[Thor]

If you want to strictly adhere to the concepts and problems of the 1st Amendment, I suggest you go open your own forum. Here's a place to start and it's all FREE!! http://www.proboards.com/

[DumbAss Tanker]

The site owner/admin can do whatever the Hell he/she wants to.  The First Amendment only restricts Congress from making laws that interfere with a free press, just the Congress, nobody else.  What has actually happened to it is that courts have extended the same rule to the Executive Branch and the States, as well as "Found" exceptions for things like libel and treason/sedition laws, so in application there are a lot of bells, whistles, and booby-traps that don't exist in the Amendment's plain language.

Of course the site owner does open up the door to being prosecuted for fraud, libel, or things of that sort if the post is edited to say something truly outrageous and there is no indication or notice that it was edited, and it is presented as something the poster really said.  Given the anonymity of most discussion board monikers, it would be very difficult to prove any such mockery would actually harm a real and identifiable person, and damnede few prosecutors would want a piece of that action.  There could be a civil liability issue for the same reasons, and with the same problems.

[formerlurker]

I think the rules change somewhat when one has to pay for membership to post on the forums as a contract of sorts is established.   I think it would be prudent in that instance for the owner to write out some membership rules which include a notation that the member is allowed to post at the will of the owner and can be banned without having to show just cause. 

[formerlurker]

The site owner/admin can do whatever the Hell he/she wants to.  The First Amendment only restricts Congress from making laws that interfere with a free press, just the Congress, nobody else.  What has actually happened to it is that courts have extended the same rule to the Executive Branch and the States, as well as "Found" exceptions for things like libel and treason/sedition laws, so in application there are a lot of bells, whistles, and booby-traps that don't exist in the Amendment's plain language.

Of course the site owner does open up the door to being prosecuted for fraud, libel, or things of that sort if the post is edited to say something truly outrageous and there is no indication or notice that it was edited, and it is presented as something the poster really said.  Given the anonymity of most discussion board monikers, it would be very difficult to prove any such mockery would actually harm a real and identifiable person, and damnede few prosecutors would want a piece of that action.  There could be a civil liability issue for the same reasons, and with the same problems.

I think an owner of a website would be liable if they allowed members to harrass, 'bully", threaten etc. other members with reckless abandon.    I think an owner has to be extremely careful if they allow minors to post on their forums.   Copyright infringement is a serious concern that major media outlets have zero tolerance for (just ask FR).   Lastly, I think that owners should avoid altogether members discussing engaging in illegal activities as who the hell wants to deal with the hassle/legal fees if authorities knocked on their door about it.   

I would have no problem as an owner telling members -- hey, you are on your own.  You post something that triggers the FBI knocking on my door, then I am giving them the keys to the castle without hesitation.  You post pictures of your family with identifing markers to where you live, daily habits, children's names, etc. and some loon you slighted tracks you down, then best of luck -- you brought it on yourself.   Don't blame us if you didn't get a job or accepted to grad school because google is very accessable to pretty much anyone with the cognitive abilitilies of a Kindergartener; and finally, if you have a fetish with sockpuppets and like to use them in a malicious manner?  then no sympathy from our end as cowards are really not the type of posters we are looking for as members.  Everyone acts like an adult, and then it is all good.

[TheSarge]

To what extent should a moderator/owner of a web forum that is open to the general public for the purpose of discussing politics be allowed to edit posts or ban posters? How much should such web forums be governed by the First Amendment?  Should a poster be banned simply because he expresses an opinion that the owner/moderator or other posters disagree with?

His board his rules.  If certin things...like troop bashing or blatant racism are in the rules as not being allowed..then if someone violates the rules they should be shown the door.

Does anything change when a web forum asks for donations to cover its operating costs?

Nope


I was a three year donating member at a board and still got the boot.

Like I said...the owner of that website picks the tune and we all have to dance to it if we want to remain a productive member of that forum.