Why should audiophile deniers be allowed on an audiophile forum?

Try going on a Porsche forum, just for example, and posting that your Mustang is just as fast 0-60 

The Mustang might be faster than the Porsche. The way to find out is put them on the track and measure their times, but you know that goes against the orthodoxy, "It looks like it should go faster."

They way to find out is not by looking or listening to

 bull products like "audiophile switches, cables, fuses " and other highly questionable devices that serve no purpose"

but by measuring and testing them. 

What's tolerated here is obvious ignorance about science and common sense. No on is "trolling you" sweetheart just trying to add a touch of reality in a world subjected to believing everything one is told. 

This has nothing to do with free speech, feel free to flag the post. 

LOL!  Apparently free speech exists on this site via private messages as I got some hate mail last night via Audiogon mail. 

Perfect example of someone who hasn't the faintest idea what the first amendment means. Exactly what I was talking about. 

For example, just how seriously do you take the OPs complaint?

Are some of us about to be ’cancelled’?

The OP was complaining about me. If the owners of Audiogon want to cancel me or toss me off that's their prerogative.  It's the price I paid when I voluntarily joined this site and agreed to their terms. 

I dont speak for you djones but for all of us...

I have no idea what you're talking about 99% of the time and I doubt very few here do either. If the American Empire falls the world falls with it.  We'll see what replaces it unless we can manage our decline as well as the Roman Empire. 

It seems most people don't understand Free Speech in the constitutional sense. It doesn't apply on this forum, this is a private group, you have to become a member in order to participate. It's no different than Augusta National not allowing women to be members at least up until a few years ago. Like them this place can discriminate till their hearts content. Most no more look into the reality of how the law works than how a fuse or cable works. Enjoy your ignorance.  

Orwellian/Machiavellian to the core and being followed to a tee!

More nonsense from those who don’t have the slightest idea. Good people on both sides is BS. There are no good Skinheads or Neonazis. To tolerate such is  suicide to society.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Karl Popper

I cannot determine if he is feigning naivety or being disingenuous in the assertion that "if one is really intent on getting out their message , go to the nearest public square.....". The public square is unfortunately now social media and internet forums.

This site in not part of the public square. This is a private site. The internet in general under certain circumstances is considered "public". In other words as long as there is somewhere on the internet, even if it’s one site already in existence or one you start where you can " air your grievances" then your Free Speech rights have not been violated.

Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter.....these are now THE conduit for information worldwide. When that happens, a site owner loses some flexibility in my eyes.

Wrong, only the conduit that carries the message, the wires or wireless, not the owner of the vehicles "Facebook etc.." traveling the wire is protected. You cannot be refused access to the internet, the wire, based on your Free Speech rights you can most certainly be banned from the vehicles.

This is the problem in a nutshell. To many people do not understand how the First amendment protects your Free Speech rights from intrusion or punishment from the Government and even then there are still limits. At least in the United States not sure about the rest of the world.

To make an analogy, Newspapers can censor or refuse to print what you say. The government  or competing newspapers cannot keep your from printing and circulating your own newspaper.  You want the world to know how much of an AH you are , start a blog. 

Obviously there is a need for much stronger laws in this current technical environment to protect free speech. WHY? Because government has allowed private companies to take on responsibility for what would have traditionally been at some level "public utilities".

If you're saying that the internet should be regulated by the FCC the same as the airspace is for broadcast TV then that's a different discussion and not one I would necessarily be against.  

That has benefits to both the public with w.r.t. to protecting both not only the concept of free speech, but also for these entities as they stop being targets for malicious public abuse by the "mob".

No sure who this mob is you're talking about.  Are you advocating censorship of the mob? I can't boycott Hobby Lobby because I dislike their politics? 

 but perhaps are missing the big picture, discrimination for what you think.

I can think whatever I want, but no private entity is required to offer me a soapbox. You can stand on the sidewalk and picket but you can't go on private property and not expect pushback. 

I am aware there are billions of people who don't give a damn about the American Empire. I never said the species would die out but Empires don't die quietly. They might not give a damn but they will be affected. 

@deludedaudiophile  You're arguing for more government regulation and I would need to see what form they would take before I could offer an opinion.

However, what I don't think is acceptable, is that you and an outraged mob, lobby Hobby Lobby's bank, which I consider an essential service, effectively infrastructure, such that the bank feels pressured to drop them as a client

I'm not sure how this could be enforced.  Banks are in the business of making money. They're not going to drop a client or refuse service unless the alternative causes them to lose more money than dropping the client. If the government says no you can't drop Hobby Lobby  but the banks alternative is going to cost them more. I don't understand how this type of structure would work unless the government basically runs the bank. 

100 people have 100% of the capital in a bank.

The bank does business with a company 80 of these people feel goes against their personal beliefs so they threaten to withdraw their money.

Does the bank drop the company or let the 80 people leave and how would the government enforce this? 

Interstate commerce has given us a lot of government regulations concerning anti discrimination laws but I'm at a loss as to how the commerce clause can be used to do what you're advocating to prop up free speech without causing a real mess. I and any number of like minded people can come together and try to force businesses to change their behavior. Businesses will decide based on economic reasons what their response will be. I can't see the government taking away my free speech right to speak with my Dollars while allowing business to speak with theirs. 

How is the alternative going to cost them more?  It will right now, but if companies in critical infrastructure cannot drop clients then there would be no downside as you can't drop them, so you can't be blamed for having them as a client.

The only way this could be enforced is with government banks. Banks would think long and hard before they invest in any company they feel could disenfranchise their existing customers unless you're saying they have to do business with them not just drop them.