[GoodMojo]

Originally posted by Superman
I am mindful of legal issues, but Wayne knows my position on censorship here. For three years I have advocated a mostly 'hands off' approach on the part of moderators. I think the 'magic' of this board depends on this freedom. I think these decisions should be made by peers (in this case, Pelicanheads), and I notice that we are excellent at it. Troublemakers are chased out of this place quickly and firmly by the group. It's beautiful, sociologically speaking.

But there's another reason. In my professional world, consistency is often a very difficult goal to achieve, but necessary from a legal perspective. If I censor nothing, and someone accuses me of improperly refusing to censor, my response is "Your Honor, these are simply the opinions of Pelicanheads, in a community discussion that happens to be accessible to the public....like a discussion in a supermarket only on a broader scale. I do not edit the conversation, nor do I manipulate or coerce it." But if I am responding to that same criticism and it can be shown that I do in fact manipulate or censor the discussion, then I have to justify why I chose to NOT censor one discussion while deciding affirmatively to censor another. It's of of those slippery slopes. Just don't get on these kinds of slippery slopes, I say.

But, this is not Jim's sandbox. It is Wayne's sandbox.

I seem to recall a ruling from a few years ago regarding the now largely defunct Prodigy Online Services (initials not withstanding) where a member sued for this exact reason. Prodigy lost their case because they chose to moderate their boards. A little digging on the net turned this up:

http://www.itc.virginia.edu/virginia.edu/spring98/policy/all.html

Remarkably, this issue did not come up again until 1995, when a New York state court addressed it in the now infamous case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy3. Prodigy had maintained a bulletin board called Money Talk, which was moderated by a board leader, whom Prodigy had contracted with to promote the service and control Money Talk. An unidentified user had logged onto Money Talk and made some unflattering allegations about a small investment-banking firm, Stratton Oakmont. The user called Stratton "a cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired" and claimed Stratton's president was a "soon to be proven criminal." Since the user was anonymous, Stratton had to sue Prodigy because no other defendant existed.