The hypothetical I posed was a specific one, and broadening the subject can only lead to trouble, man.

At one end of the spectrum, we have the case of something posted here which is, by definition, by a Zoner for other Zoners. Unquestionably the rules of our own society must apply.

At the opposite extreme is something published elsewhere by a stranger. Again, it's clear that that person could not be protected by the Zone's rules, in part because we simply lack jurisdiction, but more importantly, because this place exists to discuss the outside world, and it wouldn't work to mark parts of the outside world as offlimits for discussion.

What's gnarly is the hypothetical intermediate case of someone who's already a Zoner publishing something "out there". Should the venue of publication take precedence and invalidate Zone rules and custom? Or should we put people first and protect our own by resolutely maintaining the sanctuary of a HabitableZone for Zoners?

A lot depends on on-topicness. A Zoner's poem published on a literary zine is pretty much irrelevant to the things we usually discuss (at least on SS, if not OffTopic). OTOH, JimO publishes articles on space topics which are hugely relevant to the Zone. If somebody here doesn't like something JimO opined elsewhere, to what degree is it permissible to savage JimO here? Does he stop being a member of this community because he said something elsewhere?

The question of expressing controversial opinions in other venues is a very different one from the question of behavior here versus there. I'd be guilty of assault if I punched somebody in retribution for punching a third party, no matter how wrong that person was to have hit the other person in the first place. My behavior would be no better than his. It's called vigilantism. Similarly, the HabitableZone has no legitimate basis for punishing somebody here for something they did elsewhere. Zoners have every right to go do whatever they want elsewhere without fear that Big Brother Zone is watching. We can only hold people accountable here for what they do here.

Behavior and opinions are both expressed in words online, and so I understand that it can be difficult at times to keep the distinction straight. Perhaps a pragmatic rule of thumb is to ask whether a discussion here of words publshed elsewhere would be ontopic. The hypothetical JimO's opinions on space are always grist for the discussion mill regardless of how Zoners feel about them; but if this imaginary JimO published a rude putdown of his employer preparatory to resigning, what could we discuss here that's relevant to Space/Science? (Other than our personal concern for his future, of course.) On the one hand we have his words forming an opinion, on the other his words constitute a behavior. One is relevant to the Zone, the other is not.

Relevancy at the Zone varies by board, and thus the distinction between opinion and behavior must vary too. Lee's opinions about race would be crucified on Space/Science on scientific grounds alone, but those same opinions posted on Current Events change the context to one of politics and society. (In other words, foreground and background switch places depending on context; here we'd examine the scientific underpinnings of his belief system, while on CE the science recedes to the background and we discuss his opinions in the context of morality and politics.) Posting racist theories on SS could be taken as disruptive behavior because he knows from experience that it violates the topic groundrules here, while the same words are within the pale on CE. To give credit where it's due, Lee knows all this and generally respects the rules.

I don't see a hard-and-fast doctrine emerging from these musings, only some thoughts about how--hypothetically--I might approach one of these neatly-defined hypothetical cases. When it comes to reality, I expect my mileage to differ. My actual conclusion faced with a real situation may be entirely different from any direction I seem to be leaning right now. That's why it's hypothetical.