A private message board deciding who can participate on their private board has nothing to do with “freedom of speech”. Restricting private message boards from deciding who can participate on their private boards would actually be a restriction on free speech.
Freeze peach? I don’t think it exists.
But it’s irrelevant in a private setting, anyway. Which this is.
No it isn’t. One can have a moral view that a forum dedicated to debate should, you know, allow debate without thinking it should be a legal issue.
I wouldn’t expect a hypocrite like you to see the contradiction with opposing rules whilst fighting to have them imposed on your enemies, though.
I could have sworn it was. When did the government buy it?
Nonsense. Of course it’s relevant to freedom of speech. We aren’t talking about a U.S. court case here. The issue of freedom of speech in society is a far broader question than just the parochial question of what legal protections are granted by the U.S. Constitution against government interference.
Note that you have to get halfway down the long Wikipedia article before an example involving the U.S. Constitution is mentioned.
In this context, Steophan is obviously talking about this board’s policy on freedom of speech.
How dedicated to free speech must you be to let someone stay in your living room and insult your other guests?
Free speech is a moral, not legal issue, and when an organisation censors anything they are not legally required to, or discriminates on who to provide a plaform to, they are committing an immoral act. Or, possibly, an amoral one if they explicitly put profit before morality, and therefore don’t consider the morals of the act at all, but even I am not quite capitalist enough to endorse that view.
Due to the censorship on this board, I doubt that that view would be endorsed by anyone, which is a loss to debate.
An easy belief to have in someone else’s venue.
That’s not the point, the point is that you should not decide whether or not to allow those insults based on whether you agree with them or not.
For example, if I’m at a party and say I think someone is an idiot for supporting Jeremy Corbyn, you cannot morally throw me out but not the person who says I’m an idiot for supporting Jo Swinson, or the person who calls someone else an idiot for supporting Boris Johnson.
What you obviously can do is to make a rule against insults, or political discussion, that applies to everybody - but just saying that someone can’t say something because they’re inthe minority is unacceptable.
That, however, is exactly what was done to Will Farnaby, and to a good few other posters here - and yet is not done to those on the extreme left who post nonsense and insult people to a far greater extent than he did. It’s hypocrisy, it’s censorship, it is immoral, and it is - perhaps worst of all for this board - promoting ignorance by allowing people to form an echo chamber.
If a board such as this is not making people feel uncomfortable on a regular basis, and making them question their beliefs, it is not doing its job.
It is certainly easy to have a correct belief in this case. I am actually enjoying the hypocrisy of all the lefties here supporting bigotry, though.
You sound uncomfortable. Are you questioning your beliefs yet?
Now we see the violence inherent in the system! 
That’s a complete non sequitur to what I wrote.
I don’t agree with Steophan’s take on this. I disagreed with one particular warning, but I haven’t followed Will’s posting closely enough to judge the overall situation. I have great respect for Bone as a moderator, and for the moderation here in general, and I’m not inclined to second guess the banning.
What I objected to was the suggestion that Steophan shouldn’t even express an opinion on board’s policy on freedom of speech, for the misguided reason that the term “freedom of speech” can only ever refer to First Amendment legal challenges. Expressing opinions on moderation policy is one purpose of ATMB, and balancing freedom of speech against other concerns is part of that policy.
Look, there was obviously animus between the two. One had power and is here. One didn’t and is gone. It does have an ironic parallel to the dangers of statism.
I happen to think the original prohibition was very carefully and expertly worded to look as if context and nuance was to play a role. In practice, it was a bit of a trap.
Now, they can throw out anyone they wish and for any or no reason at all. No one has a moral right to use these boards.
To call it ironic tends to imply that there’s no direct causal relationship. A person’s opinions on the state abusing its power are surely well correlated with their inclination to follow rules set by others in general.
Moderator Note
This is ATMB, not the Pit. Treat others respectfully and do not insult others in this forum.
One can, and there are also reasonable limits that can be placed on disruptive behavior. You appear to disagree that this qualified as disruptive behavior. Your opinion is your own, and not factual, and the moderators appear to disagree.
I’m curious what you think I agree or disagree with. I identify as a libertarian, though I like to think my flavor of libertarianism is pragmatic.
You are welcome to disagree with moderation or the rules or ask that they be changed, etc. The ability to speak and discuss is not being curtailed. What is being done is making sure that rules are followed.
Obviously, because you haven’t banned me, you must think I’m an incredibly reasonable, well-informed, and brilliant poster, and you hate WillF because he’s been so mean to me.
And I’ll just say that I thank you for your wonderful, brilliant, and ever-so-reasonable moderation and support.
Again, this is a bizarre objection. It’s like if someone says they disagree with U.S. policy in Syria, responding with the non sequitur “So you think you rather than the elected President should set policy?”. The opinion expressed was about the merits of the policy, not the merits of democratic elections.
I see no evidence that Steophan is seeking to stage a coup. He’s expressing his own opinion on mod policy, which is one of the purposes of ATMB.