Cahalan and the sorrow of Morrow. Quality Versus Quantity?

[Greg Burnham]

As for Morrow, I do not agree with you at all, Don. I do agree with the general principles you espouse here. However, when those very principles are undermined by the behavior of an individual who feels entitled to protection under the same system that he abuses, then the rules of engagement must be amended for exceptions to the established guidelines.

Freedom of speech, like any other freedom, is not absolute. Just as "One's freedom to go anywhere" is limited by another's right to privacy, so too: "One's right to free speech" is limited by another's right to not be disrupted by that speech when in pursuit of a commonly agreed upon endeavor. Where such agreement is compromised by an offending party, then that offending party has, in effect, acted in breach of contract and is therefore no longer protected from censure or censor.

The key to moderating this type of issue resides squarely on the deleterious effect that the offending party's "free speech" has on the overall agreed upon endeavor. Disagreement is not the reason for moderation, Don. We all know that. Disruptive behavior, however, is just cause for moderation. It is disruptive for an individual to continuously hijack threads and write off topic, almost exclusively sexually emphasized, posts.

(At this stage there should really be no doubt in anyone's mind who has seriously studied the evidence that JFK Jr's Piper Saratoga did not crash as the result of pilot error nor due to innocuous mechanical failure.)