RationalWiki has it's own version of the nifamous Conservapedia:FBI Incident. They made legal threats, and are unwilling to dicuss.
You want explanation? Certain members felt uncomfortable with an open death threat in a username. As such, one user pointed out that death threats are not protected by free speech, whereas another user, partly for the lulz, but also to raise a serious point, introduced the (non-legally binding) ICPR as a stopgap measure to the blocking policy to prevent the rule by sysop fiat that characterised conservapedia. Got it?-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
- Are legal threats protected by free speech? Because that's what you are making. Jeb-Berkeley 21:32, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
- I think you're conflused here Jeb ol' boy. "Free speech" pertains mainly to the govenment's legal ability to silence critics. Disputes between private citizens cannot be considered a violation of "free speech" rights unless one of the parties so involved physically prevents the other from presenting their views. This is often called "assault". The use of language in such as way as to intimidate another's right to speak, is not protected. The old adage, "your 'right' to swing your arm as you see fit ends at the beginning of your neighbor's nose," well serves to illustrate the point. ~~ CЯacke® 22:07, 6 October 2007 (EDT)