So we have the following dilemma. Without moderation, groups are subject to sporgery. (Witness RMR) With moderation, moderators can be held civilly (ironic adverb of the week) responsible for the content of messages.
I'm not a lawyer, and I know nothing of what went on. Therefore my comments are purely my own opinions, and cannot possibly be interpreted as comments on specific instances. Speaking in generalities, it just seems to me that threats directed at forums and moderators are attempts to correct speech by deliberate obstruction of the channels of free speech. In my personal opinion, such attempts are at the very least irresponsible and at worst directly threatening to out cherished freedoms.
This is especially true since the same forums are ready channels of corrective speech, which are available equally to all parties. In principle, someone may damage someone else on such a forum, but it would seem to me, simple layman that I am, the remedy should be in litigation between the parties directly involved.
But Hey! What do I know?
-LarryC
I'm not a lawyer, and I know nothing of what went on. Therefore my comments are purely my own opinions, and cannot possibly be interpreted as comments on specific instances. Speaking in generalities, it just seems to me that threats directed at forums and moderators are attempts to correct speech by deliberate obstruction of the channels of free speech. In my personal opinion, such attempts are at the very least irresponsible and at worst directly threatening to out cherished freedoms.
This is especially true since the same forums are ready channels of corrective speech, which are available equally to all parties. In principle, someone may damage someone else on such a forum, but it would seem to me, simple layman that I am, the remedy should be in litigation between the parties directly involved.
But Hey! What do I know?
-LarryC