>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Anyways this is unfinished business.
>>>
>>>Part 1 of the modifications needed have been done.
>>>
>>>To me there's something really weird with the way this twit filter is implemented.
>>>
>>>Jay put me on his twit filter. I can't reply to him in a thread. So far so good.
>>>
>>>But the guy put me on this twit filter.
>>>
>>>Why the heck would he want to reply to me? Anyways that's just the way it is. Apparently we're only a small bunch to see it that way.
>>
>>If you don't want to hear from him, twit him. There is no great need to change something that has worked reasonably well for many years into something that is completely unnecessary.
>
>Only available tom paying members. I'm not a paying member.

In that case, you've made your choice, and you shouldn't be asking for the system to be changed just because your choice doesn't give you the option.