The moderator of radio programs have a legal obligation to comply with FCC rules. There are specific words that cannot be uttered on the airwaves. However, there are certain forum that allow persons to express themselves regardless of how foul the language is. I honestly thought this site was such forum.

Again, if we are all required to have a sanitized commentary, the rules should apply to everyone. It is obvious that the decision to remove my blog is arbitrary.Nevertheless, I’ll try to practice what I preach and will not stoop to the level of other bloggers. I am no angel, but I will focus on issues rather than personality.

Please be informed that I do recall exactly what was stated. If it was offensive and the website deemed it necessarry to remove it, I do apologize. Frankly, though, it was a surprise that such action was taken.It was my understanding that since I used my real name, the administration of the site could not be held liable for any damages.Further, the standard of decency in my mind is not the same as that of legitimate broadcast media. Review other blogs and tell me if my assumpotions are not valid.

As you have alluded, insults and racial remarks can be heard regularly on the airwaves. The moderators of radio programs have a legal obligation to comply with

The discussions here are no different to those on the daily talk shows, with the exception of Sam Topp who hosts his show under very strict guidelines. Ever listened to some of the discussions on Roger Morgan’s show? Race is constantly brought up and there have been conversations that took strong racial positions against “whites”. I am a black man and those conversations still made me feel uncomfortable. Nonetheless, the host allows those discussions to continue. On the contrary, if Verdel Petersen called Roger’s show and said what she said in her comments that were removed, I guarantee you Roger would terminate the call.

On another note, I would love for you to write the Daily News and tell them just as they wrote regular editorials on previous administrations they need to do the same on the present governor. Just take a look at the list of people on the editorial board. It was previously 2 people writing daily editorials before the purchase of the paper, now it’s more than 10 people and they can’t even write a weekly editorial. Why not? Maybe because they want to assure another 4 years for deJongh? Be consistent.

We have since approved your comment since a cursory glance didn’t reveal anything offensive in it. Your comment wasn’t the first legitimate comment held as spam and unfortunately, due to the nature of the internet, it won’t be the last. Thank you for your participation on this site.

————————————
It is easy to focus on the AG partially because he is a public figure. However, child support matters can tend to be lopsided, partial, and discriminatory with fathers mostly (and some mothers) being discriminated against.

In other forums on this site, the topic of the draft constitution, the Fourteen Amendment, and discrimination has dominated the discussions. The Fourteen Amendment speaks in part about not depriving citizens of life and liberty. Growing national case law is showing the relevance of this amendment to parental rights. Additionally, case law also speaks to the impermissible interference of the government into parents rights, to the care and custody of their children. However, these are often ignored or misapplied.

Virgin Islands law mentions several classes of people that are entitled to support, to include minor children. However, the other groups receive little attention except removed spouses who are seeking alimony.

The child support system locally and nationally is flawed. But many parents, who are targeted, out of embarrassment or ignorance, do not challenge the system. Moreover, some of these parents provide support over and beyond what has been mandated without their efforts being recognized or credited to child support.

One irony is that parents who pay child support are hardly viewed as loving and caring parents who willingly support their children. Instead they are seen as villains who are being forced to pay. Many onlookers think: They must be deadbeats. Why else would they be paying child support? This is a false premise.

Child support cases are often begun out of malice, bad break-ups, and out of an “I’m going to get you attitude.” This poisonous attitude can flow from the custodial parent to the child resulting in impaired relationships with the other parent.

On another point: How do the “needs” of a child change based on the income of a parent? It doesn’t! But the system says, if you income increases so should your child support payments. This is nonsense. This creates an atmosphere of greed not of need.

We have heard that it takes more than money to raise a child. However, the system focuses primarily on money.

Don’t judge a man or woman until you’ve walked in his/her shoes.

But, the site owners are free to do as they please. It’s just a shame that one or a few individuals have stifled the voice of many. Hey! Almost like what the governor did with the draft constitution.