Let me be frank. > that is why things like terms of service are held to the more objective letter, and not the highly subjective spirit. I replied. > You mea

Let me be frank. > that is why things like terms of service are held to the more objective letter, and not the highly subjective spirit. I replied. > You mean as in the case that we're discussing? Clearly your objection is that the TOS is not held in this case at all. Which could indicate that they're failing to act or they are interpreting their TOS subjectively per his special role. > No, I'm claiming he has no more legal right to make threats than any other person. This is not about freedom of speech. This is about his position, that threats are sometimes part of negotiation and he can legally threaten (as an example). Large classes of other people cannot, for instance, negotiate on behalf of the U.S. We're not arguing about the same thing here.