Question: "Didn't your agreement to abide by the rules of the forum oblige you to refrain from copying those posts, once Cass put up the notice saying that you couldn't."

Answer: No, obviously not. First of all, because the 'agreement' was only implicit, as I recall. One didn't see any notice to the effect that one agreed to be bound by the rules of the board as a condition of one's membership. Cass simply took such an agreement to be a given, and I most certainly never offered it to her.

As a matter of law, I can not cede my free speech rights in matters in which there are no national security or proprietary informational concerns, or matters of confidentiality. These posts all took place on a board open to the general public, visited by thousands, many of them anonymous. By allowing this to be possible, the House of Netjer has clearly stipulated that this is not confidential material.

Legal precedent couldn't be clearer on this point, as common sense should tell one. Imagine if free speech rights worked in the manner that Stephanie Cass wants them to. There would never again be another successful case of investigative reporting, or even an undercover police investigation. The offending parties could create an absolute shield against exposure, simply by requiring their visitors to agree to gag rules as a condition for their entry. Observe that investigative reporting and undercover police work still go on, and those exposed often do have attourneys working for them. If such a defense was so easily available, don't you think that one of their lawyers would have mentioned this handy detail by now?

Obviously, the claim is laughable.

But, is my behavior moral? Clearly, yes it is. To document bad behavior, is an intrinsically legitimate activity. Regardless of what Cass decided to write on the bottom of a screen, there can be no legally or morally binding agreement to not document such behavior, because if there could be, providing oneself with an absolutely effective shield against bad press would be as simple as writing a few sentences. To use the language of common law, this would be an "unconscionable clause". As a matter of both law and common sense, one can't sign away any of one's basic legal rights to a private entity. Freedom of the Press is one of those rights, as is Freedom of Speech.

Question: "But, aren't people free to make whatever agreements they wish and set any terms they wish? You know, the free market?

Answer: No. The freedom of the market is not an absolute. There are limits to what we may put in our agreements, if we wish to see them enforced, as there must be.

Imagine the absurdity, if not the horror, if the law worked any other way. Do you rent an apartment? Notice the clause you signed, where you agreed to "abide by the rules of the building". Picture your landlord, fresh from stealing your furniture, turning to you, and starting to tear your clothes off. "What are you doing? Stop that!", you say. "Sorry, sir/madam", he says, "but one of the new rules in the building is that the tenants must submit to my sexual demands". The officer who has just entered behind says "stop struggling or I'll have to take you in", as he unzips his fly. Fade to black.

The example is strictly tounge-in-cheek outside of Appalachia, but the point is not. The law doesn't work that way, because if it did, there would be no law and no rights at all. Private entities do not have the absolute right to create just any set of rules they may wish on a "take it or leave it" basis. There are limits.

Click here to return.