No subject

standpoint of the IMC's basic mission, I would hope for an extremely
liberal (dare I say radical?) construction of the First Amendment's
implications.


>We have always tried to work with people to resolve such conflicts, but
>there are cases in which this has not been possible. Once again, this
>has only rarely been a problem with any individual post (however, a
>death threat would certainly fall in this category, although a
>confession probably doesn't), but is usually part of a wider pattern of
>abuse by certain posters.
>
>When we do take action against certain material, it doesn't disappear
>entirely, but is moved to the Hidden Files. The actual decision in such
>cases is not to take away anyone's right to write what they want, but to
>take away the privilege of having it appear on the mainpage of our
>website. This is a nuance that impacts the absolute right to express a
>point of view, but does so in a way that is consistent with the First
>Amendment (which does not constrain any publisher from making editorial
>decisions in any case.)

I'm afraid I haven't paid enough attention to the newswire structure to
know whether there's a "pointer" somewhere on the main page to the Hidden
Files.  In any event, in the case of McRae, who did not have a history of
spamming, I'm glad that his posts weren't hidden.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Mike.

John