Hi goin,
I think, because the US constitution describes this thing called unabridgeable speech, some people think, oh, it's okay to say anything whenever and wherever you wish to. And anyone who stops that is a villain.
I think there are a few useful observations one can make on the subject:
1. It simply isn't true that there are no restrictions on speech, even in the good ole USA. Copyright is a form of restriction on repetition of speech. The legal protection of minors specify exclusions on speech of certain kinds to certain people. Libel is a restriction on false speech about people that harms their reputation. Government secrecy is a restriction on the kinds of things certain people can disclose about things they know. Software licenses are a kind of limitation on the use of a specialist kind of speech which makes equipment work. The creation of law associated with the distribution of child pornography is a restriction on speech. Laws about the incitement to violence are restrictions on speech. The regulation of false speech in emergency situations (you cannot yell fire in a theater) is an exclusion of speech.
The list of restrictions on various kinds of speech is fairly extensive, even in the United States. It is even longer in countries where people want privacy. So in fact, this idea that some people have that there is no regulation in this sphere are simply wrong. In practice, there seems to be a rebuttable presumption in favour of speech, but not more than that.
2. This leaves within the scope of the law a zone for speech which is in most cases, nevertheless, "uninhibited, robust and wide open", in Justice Brennan's memorable words. Of course one wants people to be able to say their piece, so long as it doesn't breech the definitions of speech excluded by this set of rules. Rules which exist for good reason.
3. But, just as one might suppose there is a theoretical right of speech outside the areas of exclusion, so there must also be a theoretical right attached to hearing. I have no obligation to listen to what someone wishes to say. Just because someone wants to say something doesn't mean I have to afford them space within earshot. I can wish not to listen to your loud music in the middle of the night, every bit as much as you wish to play it. I can have a club for civilised conversation, and not invite Martin Lawrence to speak. I can manage a board and discourage some people who don't or won't meet the standards I wish to maintain from joining in.
4. A person disrupting friendly conversation wins in an environment in which exclusion and restriction is impossible. It is possible to destroy certain kinds of conversation by applying certain others to it. We see what that looks like on Yahoo.
5. All these kinds of discussions negate the most important point of all. The legal framework is only one of the systems we employ in a social setting to make rules. Other frameworks are entirely informal. There are unwritten rules in every group about how people are to behave if they want to remain part of the group. If, for instance, people fail to observe simple rules of courtesy, then in any circumstance in which there is a way to remove them from the conversation, in a setting that demands courtesy in order to exist, it is reasonable to apply sanctions to the speaker.
As the applier of rules on this board, it's my role to make those decisions. I'm content to do so in defence of the quality of the conversation here. I started this board to create a different kind of environment from the ones I was seeing. I'm perfectly at ease about protecting it from the kinds of people who cause harm to the conversation. I'm not trying to create a mediocracy in which everyone can make a home, and there is nothing worth reading. This is a board that admits the need for restriction. The price I pay is that some people don't want to participate. And that's just fine with me.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
