(SORRY RE-POST) What would you say-so contained by this argument something like free speech on Yahoo! Answers? (V. LONG)?

Some of you may have noticed the Crumpet troll, and how myself and other member of the [Troll Patrol] have been actively trying to stop him. I next notice another user had changed her signature to add [No Troll Patrol] and added this little statement to her profile.

"I've added [No Troll Patrol] because I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom to be rude if only childishly. It is not for us to decide when we support a right and when we don't, the right exists short support or it doesn't."

So, I ended up thinking about how I if truth be told she may be right and how I may be in the wrong. So I did some reading and decided to write down a full argument for my skin. This is what I wrote, and I would like peoples feedback. Please be a critical and as damning as you like. If it's a well-mannered argument it should stand up to criticism, and if its not then its flaws will be on show.

*** Sorry I have have to re-post this after a realised that not all of what I had written have been posted. So I have included a interconnect to my dropbox so people can download a copy of my argument and read everything. Here is the link to the document - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8368863/Arguemen…
What you think is free speech, and what it means by ruling, are apparently two different things.

but he is not asking questions is he he is making racist and terrorist threats
There's a thin procession when it comes to freedom of speech and you cross it when you start threatening people and being a bigot. If he did it surrounded by a public place he would be arrested under section 5 public directive.
I'm sorry, but I did not read it all. I'm lately home from work, and tired, and not really into ready something like this (long). I'm also not au fait with the "troll" you are referring to, so I can't comment about that personage.

But, I can sum up my argument why this person (No Troll Patrol) is wrong in their assessment of Free Speech. It comes down to one really simple concept: GOVERNMENT cannot infringe on your right to express your opinion and beliefs. Free Speech has nothing to do next to private entities allowing you to express your opinions and beliefs. And Yahoo!, and the members of this site, are private entities.

Free Speech also does not allow you to vindictively spread false information about someone, place, or thing. The "yell FIRE in acrowded theater" analogy falls into this. You cannot yell "FIRE" in recent times to see people rush out in a madness.
Free speech does not apply on uklawfaq.com, if you call a "questioner" an idiot for asking a ridiculous press you receive a violation. Yet Yahoo allow racist questions to be asked something like the English. They allow libellous things to be said about our Queen and they do nought about it. God forbid if you said anything about someones colour, and that is to say different?

They are allowing an idiot to make them look foolish. RIP Answers
Tricky one this, I agree to their right to free Speech and if that scheme being offencive to some, well so be it, but when it become a constant tirade of dribble about nothing after there are limits to these rights of free Speech, when that right is abused on a constant day by day basis, then I reckon that that person has or should own their right to be freely offencive curtailed.
Its not just about anyone offencive though is it, its more than that its a nuisance that impacts on other peoples amusement and that for me is the main reason why this individual has passed the point of no return and should be warned or for good banned from uklawfaq.com.

This person is clearly deranged and is contained by some desperate need for some serious expert medical attention.
My argument on the issue is simple.

This is uklawfaq.com, not yahoo opinions. Keep those for your blog.

Lots of people post pseudo-questions masquerading as question when theya re just an opinion witha question-mark at the finish off? Typical example:

"Doesn't this story in the daily mail/telegraph [insert website] prove that adjectives immigrants/Muslims/blacks are really awful and that we need to fight for the rights of the indigenous population/Christians/whites?

Those sorts of question, from whatever aspect of the political spectrum, should be driven out of YA to the blogosphere where they belong.

Related Questions: