On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Gratargs: Rule 101 states that no interpretation of a binding agreement may
> substantially limit a person's rights. This seems to mean that Rule 101
> rights are unalienable.
It's a question of what "substantially limiting" means, really, and also
"participation" in terms of the fora.
We have had several rules limiting speech (e.g. forbidding revealing of
secret info). This does not necessarily limit the general participation
in the fora.
Also, speech always has consequences, even in free society. You could have
the right to participate, even if a contract would ding you a minor penalty
for doing so. If the penalty was so high and inescapable that the effect
on all participation was chilling, then you've got a case. Could come down
to specifics beyond the general statement of hypothetical contract in the
current CFJ.
