It's just not a First Amendment issue. It may still be wrong, or un-American, or whatever. My comment was purely a lawyerly one.

Personally, I don't like the political posts and rarely read them anymore. I also don't like it when people bash the convention organizers, etc. because I believe it hurts the club. Reasonable discussion about some negative aspects are fine, especially put in the context of the work put out and all of the things that are being done right, but how often does that happen?

As for the restrictions, I don't care if there is a restriction on political speech even though it usually seems so divisive and nasty on this board. People can simply ignore the posts (at least when they are made obvious by the subject lines). I am upset when I innocently happen upon some ridiculous rant, propaganda, nonsense, attack because the subject line indicates a joke or a comment that does not seem to be politically related. So, if it were up to me, which it is not, I would simply ask that the threads be clearly marked. If not, I will still live, so it's not a huge deal for me. If Greg chooses to make such a restriction, it wouldn't bother me either. There are many other places (alternative fora, to use the lawyerly term) for such discussions. One serious problem I see is, what is a "political discussion?" Many topics have political components. May topics have become politicized. Many may be viewed through a political lens, so that a non-political post may invite a political response. Is Jeff merely suggesting no discussion of the upcoming elections? I don't know.

I am, however, all for Steve's pledge. One, it's very limited in scope. Two, it is directly aimed at helping the club and the hobby. And, most importantly, three, it is completely voluntary. No one has to do it.

Given the current rules on this board, I support your right to write what you want, political or otherwise. I may not like it, but I believe in your right to post it. It's just not a constitutional issue.

Michael Siskin