Arbitrary deletion / locking – Constitutional infringement?

[Jhabrix]

I've been following this forum for a few days now... and i've noticed there seems to be an arbitrary (disputed or not) locking of threads and deletion of posts. This amounts to a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right of free speech.

I've spoken with a Constitutional Lawyer (Constitution of the US of A), who says that notwithstanding whatever guidelines are laid down in the Forum FAQs, or whatever, as long as posts / threads are not race / gender / religion / personally overtly abusive, any blocking of these, in any form, are infringements of the First Amendment. ie. the Right to Free Speech.

As such, they are subject to prosecution. I have further clarified, that notwithstanding, any guidelines laid down, as long as there is no abuse of the above (and more categories) all the people, such as moderators, infringing on those rights, are liable to prosecution. Furthermore, as Adobe is the host, despite their disclaimer to this being a user-to-user forum and particularly in the fact that moderators are appointed by them are the first respondent. These are ultimately public fora (forums). Under the Adobe umbrella, whoever interferes with posts is equally liable – provided a particular individual can be proved to have acted to delete / bar / lock a post or thread.

The above is the opinion of two lawyers. Both have argued Constitutional cases in the courts.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Jhabrix wrote on 9/12/2009 9:38 PM:

i've noticed there seems to be an arbitrary (disputed or not) locking of

threads and deletion of posts. This amounts to a violation of the First

Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right of free speech.

The first Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Discussing the acts (real or imaginary) of Congress to make laws that

violate the first amendment here is off topic so I am locking this thread.

Message was edited by: Jochem van Dieten to fix some layout issues