Salty, i'm not going to play interweb lawyer, and it is not me that you have to convince. IRL, you don't get to quote wikipedia articles to the judge, who, in turn, quotes Investopedia and Google and you break for lunch. It simply not like that, that's why people spend time studying law/spend big money on lawyers.
If the tinfoil hatters are right, If the TLAs are reading this forum with Evol intent, this sort of thing is just the foothold they'll use. Building a case, from that point on, is simply scraping logs. It's just *IDIOTIC* to take risks like that *for a fraction of a bitcoin* (next lowest bidder would have made up all but a fraction).
I'm amazed that this needs to be spelled out. This is not a case of defending the freedom of speech -- it is a case of defending the rights of a blatant scammer to profit off Bitcoiners.
It's embarrassing. It's not something I want Bitcoin to be associated with, no matter how tangentially.
I'm not quoting wikipedia articles, I'm quoting my business and criminal law text books
If the point is that people don't want "shady" stuff associated with Bitcoin, that has nothing to do with the forums. These forums don't represent Bitcoin any more than Craigslist represents the US Dollar. Bitcoin is a currency, the only thing the forum has to worry about is its legal obligation, which should be satisfied. The forum is about freedom of speech and ideas pertaining to Bitcoin. Banning something that some specific people don't agree with is sort of against the whole idea of freedom of money. You are still restricted by what your country of residence allows, but why should we add more restrictions?
I'm not a user of drugs, ponzis, gambling sites, or other paraphenalia, but I don't see why its my right to tell people what they can and cannot do, outside of forum policy and legal restrictions.