As I've heard about this situation it keeps reminding me of the legal precedence for the expectation of moderation or censorship once a business has engaged in moderation or censorship - a topic in my Cyberlaw class a few years ago.
It occurs to me that; now that the Free State Project (FSP) Board has removed Chris Cantwell as a participant and declared him "unwelcome to attend FSP-organized events", they may have unwittingly creating a blueprint for the marginalization of the FSP.
By taking action against Chris Cantwell for his written views that the "FSP Board believes [...] exceeds the right of self-defense," they may have opened themselves up to the legal expectation that they have adopted an editorial process for vetting the written brain-droppings of FSP participants.
The risk being that; if the FSP does not now condemn all written rhetoric that the FSP could be reasonably expected to have knowledge of and would deem detrimental to the accomplishment of the Free State Project's goals, failure to take action commensurate to that taken against Cantwell could be legally interpreted as tacit endorsement of said writings.
This method of associating the FSP with written rhetoric of FSP Participants could be an effective attack vector exploitable by anyone wishing to discredit the FSP because anyone can become an FSP Participant and if they want to claim the FSP is an organization of domestic boogeymen (boogeypeople?) - they just have to get one on the inside and then exploit that participant status to then have 'evidence' which supports previous claims such as those made on the bearcat application.
Am I paranoid? Is there something I'm missing that should prevent this from happening?
Quoted stuff from:
http://freestateproject.org/blogs/september-2013-board-meeting-minutes