While there is no legal or constitutional requirement that Kestryll allow free speech on the forum, and there are good legal reasons to censor some comments (keeps Kestryll from being targeted by lawsuits that would fail, but still be expensive, prevents Kestryll from being charged with distributing pornography - in the case of some images or videos, etc.), it is generally recognized that the forum is most valuable to users if it allows more free expression of ideas and debate over disagreements.
It is up to Kestryll (and the mods he appoints) to find the balance between a forum that has enough diversity of POVs that it is interesting and informative to participate in, and a site that is so rude and full of crap that people aren't comfortable participating in it.
While nobody has a "right" to membership on the forum, it is probably best if the forum is open to as many people as possible, so that it generates good discussions. This means that Kestryll needs to try to be as permissive as possible in granting and maintaining the privileges of members. This may mean that those who post things that are deemed unworthy have posts edited or removed, or that they receive temporary bans. While Kestryll has every right to ban users from the forum, this must be done prudently if the forum is to remain vibrant and useful.
While the 1A may be a guidepost and an ideal for site owners, it is not a law that applies to them, and they get to make their own decisions about their own property.
Last edited by joedogboy; 10-02-2010 at 10:33 AM..