Posted by fi on May 22, 2002, at 16:34:15
In reply to Re: FYI » kid_A, posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 15:33:44
2 points:
1. Ron: these Boards are *not* publically funded. Dr Bob has made it clear that he pays from his personal money for the server space, and all the work on the boards is done in his own time. So no U of Chicago funding is used. And the civility policy is explicit. So can you please consider that really carefully before bringing this up again? If you feel that any sort of civility policy is a breach of free speech in general and want to discuss that, fine(tho any of us may choose to disagree). But the legal perspective does not appear to fit the facts.
2. We dont have to read Lou's posts, and get drawn into these debates. Of course, we can choose to read them. But I havent regretted stopping reading these threads, personally. It does concern me that they may put off people new to the board, or 'lurking'.
Sorry- this sounds stroppier than I meant it to. I would just like things to calm down a little, and also dont want people to be bogged down when its avoidable.
I dont need a reply from either of you, tho of course you may want to post in response. Lou: please dont take the time to reply to this post with a post for me, as I wont be reading any more posts in this thread.
Fi
> > If we want to make a start at fostering an environment on this site for mutual support lets start and remove repeated religiously dogmatic posts from the site entirely. Im sorry to say this Lou, but I'm persoanlly sick and tired of all the Gates, the Horsemen, the Crowns, and whatever logic you construe as your personal twist of saving grace.
> ------------------------
>
> Hi Kid_A,
>
> I don't want to stir this pot further, and I do not want to offend anyone. Therefore, please categorize this post as "informational only".
>
> Due to the fact that the University of Chicago receives federal (US) grant monies, it is illegal to discriminate against public speech on this site solely due to the fact that the speech happens to be religious in nature. In other words, the law does not allow for censorship of religious speech merely because some, or even most, of the public forum participants vote to discriminate against said type of speech.
>
> Having said this, I can also see the other side of the issue. For example, what if someone were to flood this site with a bazillion posts daily that contain religious speech? In this hypothetical case, it would be legal to, for example, limit the number of allowable posts per day of ALL POSTERS, but it would be illegal to selectively censor only those posts that contain religious speech.
>
> Best Wishes.
>
> -- Ron
poster:fi
thread:24134
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020517/msgs/24337.html