Most forums allow freedom of expression relying on the community to self regulate and in extreme cases call for the assistance of a moderator. This works well and respects freedom of speech as set down in the 1st amendment and present in all “modern democracies” around the planet. It leaves the members of the community with a sense of responsibility and mutual respect.
Many Audiophiles that have grown with “audiogon” as a fulcrum point to their ideas sharing with an openness and ease with their fellow passionate audiophiles around the planet. This community was a place to learn to agree and disagree with ideas and concept attached to sound reproduction. The individuals either knew, wanted to know or thought they knew about the subject matter. This we guess is one of the many positive sides of the www virtual gatherings of individuals from around the planet from all walks of life meeting around a shared passion.
I was flabbergasted the 1st time one of my posts was not posted….I thought that this was an isolated technical issue or my cumbersome ways. Then it happened again. I recall making a reference to a web site and thought to myself… is somebody censoring here? I came to learn with my fellow Audio16 blogger that this was not any isolated matter at all. That other fellow audiophiles had their posts denied by the all mighty “Audiogon” and receiving messages about the inappropriate contents…. This is seemingly in Audigon’s eyes implies pointing to other forums, blogs, websites…expressing some suggestions to enhance the content, use and utility of audiogon…
I manage large organisations and I never tell anybody to shut up…the idea about democracy is to let ideas flow and fight them with arguments and accept when good points are made!
13Audio 
Freedom of speech does work both ways so places like Audiogon are allowed the freedom to restrict content. Most of the time when sites/forums do this it’s a misguided attempt to promote their brand and generally backfires. If you have a good product or point of view it should be able to stand up to criticism, even if it’s the minority viewpoint. I am all for open discussion with two exceptions; personal attacks and inciting violence. The first is harder to detect as many people view dissent of a personal belief as a personal attack and react negatively when their beliefs are challenged. I would also say that while tolerance for trolling can vary, obvious trolling posts and behavior should not be tolerated.