Everyone keeps talking about their right to freedom of speech, but let's get technical; Does that still apply if the "free speech" in question is aiding and abetting a known (albeit yet to be proven) criminal?

To get even more technical, although everyone is entitled to free speech, other party's are not required to host that speech on their websites. Even if they were, if that speech is even suspected of aiding and abetting a potential criminal, one could argue that the webmaster would have an obligation to remove the post, since its mere existence is potentially illegal.

I support open discussion and want open debate, but not when a poster has a clear agenda that involves preying on unsuspecting investors. If a poster supports certain party's who have just crushed a share value by 95%, then openly tried to steal 80% of what remains, you have to question their motives. Have these individuals been offered a portion of future PP's? Are they personally going to profit, while the majority is diluted and left behind? When they say they support the wrongful dismissal of a 91% majority vote; when they refuse to acknowledge any wrong doing has occured whatsoever, when there has clearly been at least a degree of ill intended subversion; it becomes clear that they are a wolf in sheep's clothing and their activities should not be tolerated.

All in my opinion.