What you are saying makes no sense. The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private businesses. The Left is not really known for it's opposition to free speech, you are making up a boogey man, in fact, this entire thread is laughable and stupid, and you offer zero evidence that this event you cite has anything to do with, well anything. Dude, you are drinking way, way too much Koolaid. When the US government does something to limit your access to the Internet, get back to us. Private businesses are under no obligation to enforce the 1st Amendment, to test this, send the females in your office links to Hustler's web site, or better yet, surf it while your boss looks over your shoulder while congratulating him for allowing it to get thru his firewall so that you can enjoy your 1st Amendment rights. Let us all know how that works out. And like I said, I've looked at her site and urge others to as well, she posts obscene gestures and allows racist comments in her blog posting, and if I operated an Internet hosting business and didn't want her garbage on my servers, I would be fully within my rights, I owe no one "the right of free speech" on my private property, and that's what an Internet server is, private property, and this woman, a lawyer who gets her way by bullying people with threats of junk lawsuits, has no "violation" of her 1st Amendment rights that I can see.

This happens all the time. You don't decide what gets played on the radio or tv for example. Unless you're a tv/radio producer.

Not on a company computer.

Not a joke, but companies decide how you use their computers.

The person in question was apparently working in good faith and made an error, which was corrected quickly. Prove me wrong. Furthermore, if you're truly mortified about the prospect of one person determining the content of an information venue, brace yourself for this next phrase: Newspaper Editor.

I doubt that a company the size of McAfee was rocked to the core by the threat of a lawsuit from one disgruntled blogger. Again, an error was made and was quickly corrected. Non-drama.

Nothing McAfee did prevented the existence of the site in question. Their filtering services, voluntarily purchased by their customers, had briefly and erroneously prevented access to the site.

Your post is overheated, hysterical, foil-hat-esque...

Does that include porn?

I really think I hear more whining from the right.
And free speech is one of the basic tenets of our society, one that many brave people have given their lives for, so don't just assume that the other side of the aisle doesn't get it.
Now you will have to excuse me, my foil hat needs another layer.

Kiddie porn is free speech. But I cannot imagine a reasonable person believing there is any redeeming social or artistic value in it. So I think the overwhelming majority of people are very supportive of laws sanctioning kiddie pornographers.

So is "free" speech actually open only to that speech which is normative to society?

I think if we let the twisted thoughts breathe a bit we can all list any number of things that we accept as evil without a second thought and applaud absolute suppression of those activities & behaviors. Some taboos are so strong that nobody is willing to take the side in an argument in which they must advocate for those behaviors. Is that rational?

Botnst emerges as an advocate of kiddie porn? Please, please you are giving me way too much ammunition....

Good to see you're drinking again.

Strangely, I find us in the same boat, just different threads.


I'll take a shot at your questions.

I don't think so, although it's tough since members of society are the speakers. It seems natural they we judge amongst ourselves what is appropriate. And, we limit free speech for public safety.
Even still, I think free speech should not require public approval. Speech is not action. Provided that speech (or rather expression) doesn't have a physical component that breaks laws, no, free speech is not limited to what is normative.

Yes it is rational. No one should have to or expect to advocate for behaviors one abhors.

Kiddie porn isn't speech if it's film or image, I believe that would be expression or "art". Talking about kiddie porn is probably protected; look at NAMBLA (?) not sure of the acronym but I'm sure it's close. To be clear (so the pirate doesn't make the same mistake about me as he did about Bot) I am totally against any kind of those activities.

It used to irritate me. I'm thinking that he probably fights a substance abuse problem and in resolving it, projects his problems. I doubt he has a sexual attraction toward children but I bet he doesn't get along well with strong-willed women.

Just guessing.

Be careful! your projectile vomit and spinning head may attract the moderator.