Try reading the posts, Red, instead of reacting reflexively. You still aren't addressing the issues. You're simply concurring with the assertion that an ability to do something, kill posts, makes it okay. And , like the love-America-or-leave-it types, you argue that we should leave or shut up if we don't like it. In other words, you want to control expression. ....which is the ISSUE. (You don't need to reply, if you are just going to reiterate the point that Keith has the right to do what he's doing and that if I don't like it, I should go elsewhere. I get your point.)

And by the way, media, though privately owned, are regulated and, in the case of electronic media, cannot unilaterally deny expression to opposing points of view (such media are also free). Defamatory speech is regulated through libel torts. And, beyond that, most media are governed by ethical rules of their professional associations.

I agree, as I already said, blackguy, that most media have rules that attempt to make debate civil. But in actuality, civility is not protected or mandated under the law, which recognizes that free expression often results in heated exchanges that include "hyperbolic invective."

Also, the internet is a more democratic medium where many voices can make themselves heard. Nobody here has advocated that people should be allowed to overtake the entire board with their agendas. What I am advocating is permission to politicize sex WHERE IT OCCURS, rather than shoving it off to the side because the political sentiments or the language offend someone.

I can't see how this isn't totally obvious. I mean, do you really think it makes sense to protect someone's posting a fantasy about mounting a dog or a teenager, but to say it's not okay to mount a soapbox about sexual politics? Nobody kills or banishes to the back of the board posts on the disgust factor that I know of...but they do kill (or reasssign) posts on a political basis. Don't you see the obscene irony?