But yet the moral debate remains wide open...

You didn't sign an EULA when joining this site, so I'm not sure why you think you'd have any rights at all, legally speaking. Plus, the owner is based in Australia and who knows where the server farm is. I don't even know what jurisdiction this site would fall under.

"so I'm not sure why you think you'd have any rights at all, legally speaking"

I agree. I hope that 'you' is a general one, as opposed to specific to me. I didn't lay a claim to any rights.

Yeah, I think it's great the freedom that Kestas and the mods give us, even if sometimes I think some of the speech should be curtailed. Mainly hate speech. But better to let that slide than become a site where no one wants to go talk for fearof getting muzzled and repressed.

Once again, absolutely agree.

I meant the Royal You.

Why thank you.

it isn't even morals, honestly. Kestas doesn't delete crap that is said because he's ethically a nice guy and encourages sharing.

Legally and morally, it is indifferent towards free speech. Ethically, people enjoy the ability to say what they want.

I thought it was at least partly because the practical challenge of moderating the forums was too great.

"who knows where the server farm is."

According to traceroute, it's in Amsterdam.

Only individuals who have no faith in the truth accept any abridgment of freedom of speech in a forum.
The truth always wins out.
Which is exactly why communism collapsed and socialism is imploding.

^^ Says the guy who mutes everybody who disagrees with him?

I'm not too sure what the difference between ethically supporting free speech and morally doing so is, fk, and would be interested in hearing more on this (not being sarcastic at all).

But anyway, what everybody's said is true. I would only add that there is a _legal_ curtailment on free speech on even a private server -- at least in America, you're still perfectly liable for slander or libel charges for things said online, especially if you start mentioning somebody's real identity.

+1YJ, I'd add more +s but I cannot.

sure you can NikeFlash, it will just get you banned.

@semck - While the jury's still out, so to speak, on that one, what you say is actually false. The site is not liable for what individuals post in the US. In 1996, Congress passed a law that makes website operators immune from lawsuits involving third party postings.

There is a case in federal court right now about that with regard to a couple of ladies in KY who are after a "dirt" website that may be liable for the comments because they encourage and even edit the postings, but generally speaking, there is no recourse against the site or it's owners for what an individual types.

Then I amend my last comment to read as follows:
+1 YJ. I'd +1 you more, but I'd rather not create multiple accounts and get banned, so I choose not to.

@Draug, sorry, I was ambiguous. When I said "you're still perfectly liable ... for things said online," I meant the person posting them is, not the website.

Ah, gotcha. I thought we were talking about the moderation of the site compared to the current unmoderated aspects. Yes, individuals are liable for what *they* post.

This may be a personal preference and wrong, but I see "morality" in more of a "do what the ancient texts say to do", ie: the bible, or torah, or other religious texts on "being good". Whereas "ethics" is more defined by current society.
So whether or not you censor people has nothing to do with 'good' or 'bad' morally, but in the current sociological climate, it is preferred to hear things from 'raw' or from the source without any censoring or adjustment.