There is no freedom of speech on privately-owned fora, regardless of how many times it's asserted.

>The Constitution permits freedom of speech. I do not see where it says anything about Censorship. Please point me to this spot. I'll do better than that. I'll point you to this exchange between a complaining "censored" poster asking advice from a legal expert at About.com and the lawyer who responds by laying out the First Amendment to her: http://en.allexperts.com... The lawyer's comments, in part: "Hi Carol, It may be censorship, but it is not a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment only guarantees that the *government* will not suppress speech. Private individuals can usually engage in censorship. For example, if someone came to your house and wanted to tell you why you should vote Democrat, or Republican, you could make them leave. By contrast, they could not be forced off of public property for speaking in favor of a political party. About.com is the same way. They can kick out anyone they like, or put in place any rules they like without violating the First Amendment." >I can't go into someone's personal property because it is the right to privacy. Actually, the words "right to privacy" appear nowhere in the Constitution. Neither is there a Constitutional "right to vote", but I'll take that up some other time. In any case it IS someone's personal property if they buy server space in order to put up a website. Additionally, while it's a pretty convenient cop-out to say that "it's too much trouble to sue," the fact is that this society is so lawsuit-happy that some malcontent out there who has been banned or had their post deleted would have sued some webmaster for "violating his rights to 'Freedom of Speech' by denying him his "right" to post any damned thing he wanted to post anywhere he posted it. People sue for ANYTHING these days, as a chance to win their own personal lottery. As noted, unless a lawsuit against a PRIVATELY-OWNED website owner or admin has slipped by me somewhere in the last ten years or so, this has NEVER HAPPENED, because a lawyer would laugh the guy out of his office, not because it would cost too much, or because it was too much trouble. The problem is this: people have gotten used to saying anything they want to say on the internet, and getting away with it, because they get to use anonymous internet handles. Dennis Prager, columnist and commentator, touched on this in a recent column when he noted that "Internet Anonymity Is as Destructive as Internet Porn.". Prager notes: "That is why people -- even generally decent people -- tend to act so much less morally when in a crowd (the crowd renders them anonymous). That is why people tend to act more decently when they walk around with their names printed on a nametag. That is why people act more rudely when in their cars -- they cannot be identified as they could outside of their car. There is no question but that most people would write very different entries on the Internet if their names were printed alongside their submission." In short, most of the problems of today's fora are as a result of being able to use fake names to abuse other posters on the same sites. They can LEGALLY use fake names -- that's not at issue. What IS at issue is that people who have no knowledge whatsoever of the First Amendment, where it applies to, AGAIN, PRIVATELY-PAID-FOR sites, are trying to hide behind an amendment to the US Constitution that they don't understand and that they hope the webmaster doesn't have a clue about, either. While people can stand on a soapbox in a PUBLIC SQUARE and yell anything they want to yell (subject to laws about public obscenity or disturbing the peace), if they think they can do it on my website (or in my front yard, which I ALSO pay for) and be supported by the First Amendment, they're not only deluded, they're flat wrong.