As I said on another thread on this subject, I'd be willing to bet that the learned judges will approach this fake problem with a certain ideological point of view and at the end of this costly exercise, all that will be accomplished is that they will codify the silencing of politically incorrect points of view.
Backhoe posted a link to a blog where they are discussing the Brett Kimberlaine story. I think it's worth having a look at it again within the context of this discussion we are having about FD. You can see it here: http://theothermccain.com/2012/06/01/th ... periority/
The title of the blog post is "Radicals Justify Their Evil by Invoking their Presumed Moral Authority".
In particular, this paragraph jumped out at me, the "accusations" referred to being "Islamaphobe and White Supremacist":
, you see, are part of the belief system by which the far Left justifies its lawless radicalism: Because their enemies are all, in one way or another, guilty of political ThoughtCrimes (a category that the Left is always willing to expand and re-define as necessary), the Left need not be scrupulous as to the means by which it advances its goals.
If you buy into the premises of their argument, then the conclusion logically follows that any outcome other than the complete triumph of the Left — the extermination of all resistance — is unacceptable, and whatever foul, unjust and illegal actions are necessary to accomplish that triumph can be justified."
Now, here's my point? Why would we allow this presumption of moral authority by the left, become the deciding factor in what is considered allowable speech? Why are we buying into their premise that there is even such a thing as "allowable speech" when it comes to expression of political opinion and why on earth would we buy into the idea that judges (or anyone for that matter) can be the final arbiters of what that speech is?
The fact is, if someone wants to participate on a political discussion forum, they must first sign up, so in other words they are making quite a deliberate effort to be involved in the raucous and unpredictable world of opinion flinging. As I said in another post on this subject, why isn't the answer simply a disclaimer from the forum operators that says that you sign up and play at your own risk of hurt feelings?
I can't count how many times Red Green has accused me of being a member of the "Conservative Taliban". Should I run away crying and ask the state or lawyers to silence him and stop him from expressing his (ill informed) opinion of me? No! I'd rather argue with him and call him names in return. And, if either one of us crosses a line, we do so at the risk of being banned or held in low esteem by other forum members.
We must insist that this voluntary and self-regulating aspect of political forums should be respected and not even engage in this fake battle that these judges would like to deliberate on, especially when you factor in the mind-set and political inclinations of those very judges.