Okay, the fact that nobody agrees with me means something. I still see a debate there, and am pissed that the thread has died with issues open, and I suspect the move led to that, but the fault must be mine: what I see as the debatable issues (Ninjachick’s ignorant confidence notwithstanding) center around both the constitutional perils and the wisdom of adding web 2.0 features to the site.
Next time I’ll try to make my debate clearer.
Daniel
When your own “pointing out” rests on a factually incorrect premise, yes.
The 1A applies to the executive every bit as much as it does to the legislature, regardless of the actual text, and political speech is more protected than any other form.
Not only that, but the limits on 1A in other gubmint contexts (e.g., courtrooms) have been hashed out through a series of contentious lawsuits in which the line between permissible restrictions and impermissible restrictions has been constantly refined. The idea that no such process would be needed for a relatively novel format like a government-run messageboard is asinine.
Daniel