Jay,

SNIP>
>That's a good answer Tom. I believe though that a person has a social obligation, if they have taken on the responsibility of an open public forum, to be held to some rules also. The fact that we keep saying that "if you own a business you can do what you want" gives a lot of authority with not much responsibility. Extreme example (isn't that what debates are based on?) but what about a well known pro basketball player who supports charities for children and then is taped swearing at a little girl at a golf tournament. Letter of the law, they probably didn't do much wrong. Spirit of the law, big no-no. They have a social responsibility that comes with the territory that transcends the simple written rules.

It's basically true that "if you own a business you can do what you want" BUT a business relies on CUSTOMERS, and if that business does things that perturb most of its customers it will not be a busines for very long.
People who run UNmoderated sites can easily (and rightfully, to some extent) claim that any moderators' heavy-handedness in a moderated forum cannot happen on their own forum. On the other hand, those fora suffer greatly when some jerk comes along and makes all kinds of trouble.

I will say - even as a convicted obscenist - that I think the UT applies its rules fairly. Of course the person involved in an "incident" (myself included) is likely to see the matter differently.
I would, though, like to see 1 additional rule. I would like that the UT management not entertain any complaint about message content unless the complainant has first advised the originator of his/her 'problem' with the content. This would afford the opportunity for a public apology or retraction. This would also curtail any malicious or vendetta-like complaints.

Jim

>
>For the record, I never shirked any responsibilities associated with my actions. Aways spoke out honestly and openly. I'm not sure I can say the same for everyone.