Shouldn't last long through before it gets removed again.

BTW- it's instructive for the kiddies, as an example of how a sock puppet differs from an alias. The sock puppet pretends to be a new entity, whereas an alias is clearly just an alias (with an occasional dose of irony).

Aliases never engage in sophomoric echo-plexing.

The fact that <George Wallace> was suspended for 168 hours for violating (according to Stonehenge) a guideline, while people with the other political viewpoint are not suspended for also violating guidelines <is itself> a violation of #4, nothing against US law.

The targeted suppression of free speech based on political viewpoints is against US law. This is a privately owned website, so it can be argued that the website can do whatever it wants, but that position is up for grabs nowadays. It's starting to be argued that public forums, such as this one, are the new public square, and therefore free speech laws must be applied.

<Access to Social Media Protected by First Amendment>

An example:

<With an 8-0 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2017 that the Internet is similar to a public forum and that social media is protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees every person’s right to free speech.

“A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Court’s majority opinion.>

<Susan> takes fairness and free speech seriously.

My argument is as follows:

1. If the <Owner> wouldn't ban a poster for some alleged violation of the guidelines, then the hall monitors shouldn't ban that poster either, because it goes against the spirit of the website.

2. <Stonehenge's> politically selective censorship in the social media square violates US law - and guideline #4. He should have his administration privileges taken away because he is using them, as <annie> did, as an instrument of his personal vendetta.

There was no censorship in the Free Speech Zone. All topics and viewpoints were allowed to be discussed. Censorship obtains when certain topics and viewpoints are forbidden and that was not the case in the Free Speech Zone.

But I misspelled Rogoff. And then I made a mistake with merging the two player files.>

Kenneth Rogoff (kibitz #50)

Give me a break. We all know that is not true.

<The Free Speech Zone required posts that were serious, substantive and insightful, so as to maintain a high level of discourse - no trolling was allowed.>

Really? >

Yes, profanity all the time.

And guideline #3 is broken (systematic personal attacks) by almost everybody on a daily bases. Just look at <Perfidious's> posts as an example.

My argument is <not> that <perf> should also be suspended, but that since the pattern of guideline enforcement has been long established (allowing, say, perf to break guideline #3 every day for years), then <GW> should not be suspended.

168 hours?

That's a lie.

<Troller> was in the forum posting frequently, but because his posts were serious, substantive and insightful, they were allowed to remain there, as were everyone else's who disagreed.

There was no censorship in the Free Speech Zone - not even a hint of it.

"...to circumbent disciplinary action...">

Right, like <Zanzibar's> socks that kept getting penalized - he keeps creating new socks because he can't post on the old ones anymore.

He even admitted he couldn't post on them. He claimed a vast right wing conspiracy was working against him to kill his socks.

To whom, and whom, are you referring?

It isn't worth the time to correct all the falsehoods, both because we know our sources, and because his posts are likely to be deleted for violating rule #7.