>>>>>You got to be kidding. Freedom of speech?!
>>>>
>>>>I have as much rights to communicate as the other person - now you're violating my rights.
>>>
>>>I think you need to study what 'freedom of speech' means Naomi. You are not correct. The right to freedom of speech does not give you the right to enforce your speech upon others any where you wish. Try walking into any business and employing your freedom of speech any day of the week.
>>
>>I am absolutely behind Naomi on this one. If someone puts you on his twit list, Michel has decided that you may no longer post a response if the other post is from that person. If the twitter doesn't want to see your reply, no problem. I'm ok with that, as you probably know from my previous posts, but to deny the person the right to post a response that others would be able to see is a truly horrible concept. I don't now if it actually is a violation of freedom of speech, but it is certainly a "gag order" at best.
>>
>>Terrible, terrible idea.
>
>I agreed with Naomi on that as well as you should know if you read my other messages here. Where I disagreed was in the use of the term 'freedom of speech.' It does not apply here. Her rights are not being infringed upon.

Ok, yes. I agree it's not really a 'freedom of speech' thing. After all, we all know the rules. This is Michel's realm, and we post at his pleasure. I just wish he'd rethink this implementation.