clubgop wrote:
Do you are saying that Capps is going Pete Townshend on Martin's equipment while I am Ted Nugent playing Stanglehold on a loop with Martin's equipment and Monty is Tiny Tim. Tiny Tim doesn't hurt the equipment but no one likes Tiny Tim.
Cool.
I shared the citation because the Court discussed the constitutionality of so-called "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech. Its reasoning seemed pertinent (notwithstanding that this is a privately sponsored website, within which none of us has the right to post, or even be present) because it set up standards for how governing authorities can regulate speech in a way that is consistent with First Amendment principles. In that case, the sponsor of a musical event at the Naumberg Acoustic Bandshell in Central Park sued NYC to challenge constitutionality of use guidelines for the band shell. The city had received numerous complaints about excessive noise at the plaintiff's concerts from users of a nearby recreation area and other park users, as well as from nearby residents. Also, problems at events by other sponsors developed because their use of inadequate sound equipment, or sound technicians unskilled at mixing sound for the bandshell area, failed to provide sufficient amplification levels, resulting in disappointed or unruly audiences. The city's regulation specified that the city would furnish high quality sound equipment and retain an independent, experienced sound technician for all performances. The Supreme Court held that this noise regulation did not violate free speech rights of performers, because it:
(a) was content neutral, since it was justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech;
(b) was narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests; and
(c) left open ample alternative channels of communication, since it did not attempt to ban any particular manner or type of expression at a given place and time.
Applying these standards to the forum, and assuming there was sufficient interest amongst the forum owner and the users to keep threads conceptually tidy, one could set up a rule that posts not related to a given thread topic are required to be moved to a separate topic at the risk of being deleted, without substantially burdening anyone's so-called "free speech" rights. The existence of unlimited quantities of new topic openings would ensure that no one's speech is suppressed. Of course, the standard would need to be "content neutral" - meaning that the moderators would be required to apply the rule to all comers, and not apply the rule only against those whose posts he or she did not like.
All of that having been said, the facts as I see them would be unlikely to lead to the adoption of such a standard, in that (a) a significant number of threads (perhaps a majority) wander off topic into irrelevancies with great frequency, suggesting that there is no desire to keep the threads on topic; and (b) the moderator and forum owner have lives and interests beyond the scope of the forum, and probably would not wish to devote the substantial time and attention required for such regulation.
Which leaves us with the chaotic, but occasionally entertaining, threads that we now have.
