(showing my age)

Matt

The reality is that (in the U.S. anyway), "free speech" means that Congress (i.e., the government) will not pass any law "abridging the freedom of speech..."

So my understanding is that as a private entity (e.g., my online community on my web site), I have complete authority to censor anything I see fit.

Sometimes there's too much history associated with a screen name, and a fresh start is needed to usher in an era of good behavior.

In my experience, unfortunately, it usually seems to be a matter of time before the returning member reverts to the same problematic activity that got them exiled in the first place. Still, hope springs eternal. In my forums, I usually will give them the benefit of the doubt and see what happens.

Could trigger happy webmasters that delete messages that express opinions different from theirs be infringing someones freedom of expression? Could a flame war against a specific member be subjecting them to inhumane and degrading treatment? And could publishing a photo of someone you saw on a night out on Flickr or a video of them on YouTube be infringing their right to a private life?

I think that is mostly true. The ones that can be rehabilitated are those that got off on the wrong foot, or didn't understand the community standards of behavior. Online communities vary a lot, and sometimes members arrive and flame others or use inappropriate language because their past community experiences were quite different. Certainly, the longer the history of bad behavior the lower the probability of successful rehabilitation.

One other indicator is whether the second identity failed to behave. At that point, further attempts at behavior modification are pointless and it's time to bring out the full array of banning tools.