"I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness."
Oddly enough my original post was intended to represent what I had received in the form of email with little other added from me since I wanted to post the message along with its title in as pure a fashion as possible.
I am not inclined to support Nightingale for governor in the least bit.
I am more of a first amendment advocate than anything else. The person I quote above is pretty much like myself.
Though I do believe this person to be 100 percent correct I also factor in
my concern for those that keep the board up and have to take heat for what may be posted here.
The points brought up pro and con for the type of post that I put up originally and subsequently changed due to possible 501C violations are valid.
So are we right to assume that the posting of a member pro or con a candidate is or is not a violation? As mentioned the posting reflects a persons point of view not that of SOS.
How do we find out just for our own information?
Freedom of speech is not a good thing to give up.
