Free Republic v. Aldridge 296
Jim Howard writes: "The controversial conservative political web site Free Republic has won a permanent injunction against one of its users who was alleged to have conducted a campaign of disruption against the site. The decision was rendered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia." Free Republic's allegations against the user are online as well.
Here is a link to a post Free Republic banned. (Score:1)
Link's been slashdotted... (Score:1)
Re:ends don't justify the means (Score:1)
That's an misused word.
Homo - same
Phobic - fear of
So, homophobic means 'fear of the same'.
Stop bastardising english/latin. Perhaps "a-homosexual" or "antihomosexual" would be more appropriate.
Re:Don't kid yourself, parasite. (Score:2)
And as for you:
Yeah, I love the way the conservatives roll up their sleeves and wade in when there are problems needing solving. Like the civil rights movement. While liberal politicians were fighting tooth and nail to keep segregation legal, you conservatives were the ones passing the legislation, attending the marches, and arguing for equal treatment under the law.Oh, wait. I have that backwards.
As for the Revolutionary War, it was the liberals who were demanding independence, throwing tea into the harbor, and loading muskets. The conservatives of the age were called "Tories," and wanted nothing more than to make peace with mother England.
As you look at the evolution of the political parties, there has been so much upheaval and machination that no one party can claim to carry the mantle of the revolution. To claim such might be politically useful, but it's certainly not an exercise in intellectual honesty.
Yawn. . . yes, yes. Folks of your political mindset are the cause of all things good and noble. Those who oppose you are moral reprobates akin to Stalin and Hitler, in spirit if not in body count. Tell me, did you actually think your way into this position? Or simply settle into it because you found it comforting to shore up your own preconceived notions?I guess in your world, "liberals" sit around cluttered, tiny apartments smoking weed, growing their beards, and showering twice a year whether they need it or not. Occassionally, they might arise from their drug-induced stupor to hop in their rusted-out VW bus and attend a PETA rally. If you took off your Republican-colored glasses, you'd see that the vast majority of so-called "liberals" are holding steady jobs and adding just as much to "the wealth of our nation" as you and your Objectivist friends are.
Yeah, yeah. Death to the treehuggers. Taxes do not automatically "sap the strength" of a country. It depends on the utility of the program. You can't describe the Interstate Highway system as a toilet for money while championing the free market which spawned the ridiculous dotcom craze. Both government and free market spending have their uses and their excesses. So if you'll can the "liberals are Satan-worshipping child eaters" rhetoric, perhaps you could add something to the debate over what those uses are. Not believing in a book written by nomads three thousand years ago which claims all sorts of implausible miracles is a sign of madness? Refusing to believe in things which have no evidence to support them is madness? As for it being a sin, the term means "offense against God," so an unbeliever isn't going to be worried by that.Re:"I know not what course others may take . . ." (Score:5)
Re:I love politics (Score:2)
(But of course, a right-leaning group is going to go for a property claim (however wrongheaded) since property rights are central to their philosophy (however wrongheaded).)
Re:ends don't justify the means (Score:2)
And you can prove this can you? Given that heterosexuals can transmit it as well.
And it was much less likely to have been a gay female than any heterosexual.
Given the number of STDs that can affect solely heterosexual men, it's a rather poor argument
Re:getting the feel of the site (Score:1)
You have misrepresented the site. Not that a prayer thread is really anything to be embarassed by anyhow.
There are seemingly endless threads all the time where people debate drug legalization; I'd hardly characterize the often bitter arguments as "monocultural."
Are you unable to read? (Score:2)
getting the feel of the site (Score:1)
Re:getting the feel of the site (Score:1)
Re:yah, good call. (Score:1)
You've managed to state explicitly what I was illustrating with the link. My post doesn't constitute a judgement unless yours does too.
Re:getting the feel of the site (Score:1)
I made no judgement. I gave a representative link.
I'd sure love it if someone gave examples of the troll posts and links and said that that's what all the slashdot posters are like.
You're knocking down a strawman. I never made any such claim. You made me curious, though: are you suggesting those prayers are not heartfelt but are, rather, the work of trolls?
Re:getting the feel of the site (Score:1)
We have not earned our Rights (Score:1)
In this case, where people are disruptive to the site may have earned a limit. When the topic is ignored and postings are made only to disrupt the flow of dialog, it is my most humble opinion that limits are permissable.
Second, his Aldridge seems to have released private information about the site's caretakers. This is a direct invasion. Can this be covered by stalking laws? (I don't think he'll be charged w/ stalking because one of his followers could have visited the Hair home and reported findings.)
Third, Robinson, et al. own the site and can ban anyone they want. Is the ban for a particular UserID or the human behind it? In this case, it is for the human. After so many IDs, this Aldridge didn't leave them alone. Maybe, this can be covered by stalking laws, too...
Re:I love politics (Score:1)
Unless this was a REAL DoS attack, there is simply no cause of action here. The tools available here make such claims considerably less meaningful.
Re:That's not a free speech issue. (Score:1)
Once you allow for equal access to merchants, it should be applied evenly and pretty much universally. That is what is meant by "equality under the law".
Also, no one said that it was the New York Times that was being exclusionary here. Publications associated with educational institutions should be held to higher standards of openness.
Re:What did he do, exactly? (Score:2)
Some of the points touched on make me think I need to cancel all my extra hotmail/yahoo ID's and just create one with my name and that is it, lest I get sued by yahoo
anonymity vs pseudonymity (Score:2)
I think a distinction must be made between pseudonymity-- in which an author posts under a consistent "nom de guerre", and strict anonymity, where authorship is unknown.
To put it another way, I could adopt a nickname (e.g. CommodusTerraMajor), and post scientillating political commentary under that name. CommodusHumusMajor would aquire karma (perhaps) and a "track record" of previous posts. But few would be able to connect CommodusHumusMajor with me, allowing myself to go about my life unmolested by angry slashdotters.
At the same time, the name CommodusTerraMajor could become synonymous with insightful commentary (Score +1 bonus). It could be that the very name would inspire people to carefully read the post, trusting his every word. This would be a valued pseudonym
Or, I could post as an Anomymous Coward, knowledgable of the fact that my words (Score:0) will be ignored by most slashdotters, as an anonymous individual cannot earn a reputation.
Re:Liberals (Score:3)
And conversatives will sigh "SLA". Remember that left wing group of American terrorists who killed a mother in front of her child during a bank robbery?
Anyway, McVeigh is not a right winger. He hated all things about government which is not a right wing view. He was coined a right winger by the left wing media folks like Dan Rather (you know, the "independent" who raises money for the Democrats - no media bias there).
While the original posters message was over the top, there is hypocricy in the liberal camp. Here in Minnesota a 13 year old wore a harmless sweatshirt the read "Straight Pride" because his school has placed pink triangles around the school as "safe zones" for gay/lesbian/transexual kids (your basic government run indocrination centers - but I digress). Anyway the same "tolerant" liberals who put up the pink triangles banned Elliot from wearing his "Straight Pride" shirt even though the government run school could display "Gay Pride" posters.
So here we have liberals who want free speech, but ONLY if you say the right thing. So much for liberal tolerance.
What I find most amusing... (Score:2)
A lot of neo-leftists out there think that things like anti-gay speech, and anti-abortion speech are illegal, and any tactic they can use to shut them up is completely justified.
At Portland State University in Oregon (from which I graduated 4 months ago), I saw "peace activists" scream at, spit on, and assault street preachers who said things that pissed them off.
Granted, the preachers were bozos and probably deserved the yelling, but seeing a hippie punch a priest in the jaw... is something to see.
Re:Acceptable Use Policies (Score:2)
Re:Acceptable Use Policies (Score:2)
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Close enough - which of course isn't close to accurate since the Intenet evolved from Arpanet which has been around since 69.
Re:Tinfoil hats and baseball bats. (Score:2)
STOP MODERATING THIS TROLL UP!!!!!!
Um, anyhow, back to the stormtroopers
You're in violation of George Lucas' copyright, please cease and desist from using the term Stormtroopers to refer to what you believe to be brainwashed strongmen acting on behalf of the Evil Liberal Empire. Or at least capitalize it. Grammar Nazi.
It's a fact. Their religion was considered "unacceptable" and they were exterminated
Just like your very own organization promotes. If you aren't reformed Christian, you're wrong. Heh. You know, there was no Christian until 2000 years ago. Before that, we were all Catholics. And, according to your own organization, you wouldn't have condoned Koresh's "congregation" - where in the Bible does it say you need to stockpile massive amounts of firearms and force your way upon the unsuspecting masses?
The FBI monitors and harasses many churches whose views are considered "politically incorrect". Just a year ago, we narrowly escaped imposition of a brutal military dictatorship which would have outlawed Christianity entirely
You say this as though it's the bleeding liberals who are guilty of this heinous act. That's funny, because the last time I checked:
- The Nazi's (a right-aligned political party in Germany in the first half of the 1900's) kept tabs on churches and people whose views were unacceptable. Like Jews. And Blacks.
- Republican hero Sen. Joseph McCarthy wanted to keep tabs on people whose views were unacceptable. Like Communists. And people who contributed to political causes. Like Republican fundraising committees.
- Affirmative Action seeks to keep tabs on who works where. Hey, look, that's a Republican-sponsored initiative, too...
The Conservative Right has plenty to brag about when it comes to suppressing and repressing groups it doesn't believe in.If Y2K disruption had not been kept under control by the wisdom and forsight of American business and the patriot community
During the Y2K Disruption, most of your "Patriot Community" was hiding out in their bomb shelters with enough canned food to feed the homeless in a major city for a week and enough ammunition to kill those homeless multiple times over. And those that weren't hiding in basements were raving like a bunch of lunatics that the end of the world was coming, and were counting the minutes until they were taken up. Well, you're still here, I'm still here, and the world goes on. What exactly did you do to control the Y2K disruption?
Secret documents were leaked and have found their way into the patriotic resistance underground
Please post these documents along with their obvious equivalents OT-III and such, please. And Kennedy was killed by a bunch of heathens because he was a good Catholic boy.
It is insane and unjust that I am subject to the same laws as a citizen of Massachusetts
I assume you aren't in Massachussets, because if you are, then you're just an idiot spouting off, because you make no sense. You are subject to the laws of the state you live in, and to the laws of the country which contains the state you live in. The only reason you would be subject to the laws of Massachussets would be if you were either physically in MA, or doing business in MA, in which case, you are involved the the daily life of the state of MA. Where's the confusion here?
Federal interference in the housing market directly violates my Constitutional right to freedom of association
What does your right to associate have to do with someone else's right to buy a house in a neighborhood. I've lived in my house for a year and haven't even seen half of my neighbors, let alone associate with them. If you're buying real estate to make a profit when you sell it, then you should
That's not a free speech issue. (Score:3)
There's nothing fascist about that.
---
Re:Acceptable Use Policies (Score:2)
But then, if you dig too hard, you might actually come up with something closer to the truth, and who wants the truth if it clashes with one's preconceived notions.
Re:That's not a free speech issue. (Score:2)
This is, to my knowledge, not settled law, but it's definitely a makeable case. For private schools/papers, however, you are generally correct.
Re:That's not a free speech issue. (Score:2)
It's an interesting question, that, as I said before, I don't think has been adequately explored yet. Other issues to consider - what does it mean for a paper to be officially sanctioned by a school? Does the school ever use the paper as a forum for official announcements/positions? Do they pay for the privilege if they do? If not, wouldn't that mean that the paper, at least partially, operates at the behest of the parent school?
Again, this is unsettled to my knowledge, but it would be awfully expensive to go to court and find out who's responsible for what, so it might be wise for student-run papers at public schools to consider who exactly they think they are responsible to.
Re:Don't pretend to be naive. (Score:2)
OH MY GOD...this is too fucking funny. I gotta see that again!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA......oh goddamnit...let's see that again....
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(sniff sniff) hehehe...ok...hehehe...I'm done now...promise...hehehe....
BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH AH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Stop it! Stop it! Oh god make him stop! HAHAHAHAHAHA....
ObJectBridge [sourceforge.net] (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Re:ends don't justify poking, either (Score:2)
You'd be surprised. Many lesbians find men in general disgusting, regardless of their sexual habits. Gay and lesbian cultures are very different from one another; the two groups didn't have much to do with each other until recently.
They only really get along because there's a group of right-wing assholes who can't mind their own goddamn business. These assholes want to throw people in jail for being homosexual, or sometimes subject them to psychological torture in order to "heterosexualize" them. Then there's the NARTH camp, which promises hysterical parents that they can "straighten out" their children through reparative therapy; except that their claims have only anecdotal support.
Eventually the homophobes are just going to have to deal with the fact that some people are just plain homosexual, much like some people are just plain left-handed. Bush and Cheney seem just fine [cnn.com] with it, which puts them light years ahead of most so-called "social conservatives."
ObJectBridge [sourceforge.net] (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Re:Blah blah blah blah blah (Score:2)
In fact, the GOP didn't go really hardcore right wing until the Great Depression.
ObJectBridge [sourceforge.net] (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Re:Average users and moderation-as-currency. (Score:2)
Of course the obvious response is that then other people would buy the points to counteract him, and he'd be down in the dungeon again. And the limitation of ratings to no more than +5 would ensure that even unlimited funds could not increase ratings too much. Still, there are enough serious abusers who would want to buy power that I would be worried about the results.
Still, limiting moderator point use to one per message would most likely limit the damage significantly. Otherwise you'd see moderation wars, which I doubt would serve anyone well but the folks selling the points; I could imagine the confusion as messages dropped down to the bottom and zoomed up to the top almost at random.
Perhaps the most promising feature of moderator point purchase and sale is that it might do something that has been incredibly hard: provide a revenue source so sites like Slashdot could be profitable.
Hi back, by the way. Got a real job. Started making real money. Didn't have time for anything else for a long time, so I had to slough off a ton of projects. Drop me an email and I'll respond.
D
----
Re:I'm a member, and not a nut. (Score:3)
Free Republic really is a fascinating collection of articles, on a wide range of topics with a wide range of political viewpoints expressed. (Just look for the "barf alerts" to see articles opposing the general FR ideology).
It's true that there are many comments that are poorly thought out, ungrammatical and ill-informed. But there is some intelligent wheat among the chaff, and the byplay between users can be interesting.
It's definitely not as sophisticated as Slashdot, but it's aimed at a population much closer to the American average, so that should surprise no one. And surely the members of the American average deserve some kind of voice? They deserve to be heard, by those who wish to listen.
I ran a bulletin board system some years back that eventually wound up being overrrun by harassers; they're like locusts, and even a small number of them can completely destroy the atmosphere of a board. So on the whole, I have to side with Free Republic here; otherwise, every political forum would be effectively unusable. Even Slashdot, with its sophisticated software and elaborate moderation system, descends into unusability at times. Unfortunately, I suspect the average user could not be lured into understanding, let alone operating, a moderation system. Perhaps I'm wrong; I don't think I am.
Thoughts?
D
----
Hmmmm.... (Score:2)
I hope so.
I realized that slashdot trolling has gone way too far when I saw goatse.cx scrawled on a restroom wall of a local pizzashop/geek hangout. That was just too much.
Re:Speaking as someone peripherally involved. (Score:2)
It's true - usually hitting one of those links makes me stop thinking "open source blah blah blah" and start thinking for myself: "dammit, hit the back button!".
Re:Liberals (Score:2)
Like his feelings on states' rghts, reducing the federal government, abortion, gun laws, taxes, military spending, etc? Or did you mean something OTHER than every major republican platform?
I must have missed his staunch support of universal healthcare and public education.
Please not, I don't lump conservatives/republicans in with McVeigh (he is clearly an extremist) but to suggest he WASN'T a conservative extremist is mind-boggling to say the least.
---------------------------------------------
ends don't justify the means (Score:2)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Re:ends don't justify the means (Score:2)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Call a spade a spade... (Score:2)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Re:I'm a member, and not a nut. (Score:2)
Re:Acceptable Use Policies (Score:2)
But, what did happen in the early 90s was that the Internet was expanded from a research entity to the publically available Internet. It required an act of Congress to open the closed, research network to commercial entities which sold access to the public. This allowed the Internet as we know it today with access available to all (who can pay) to develop.
I love politics (Score:2)
And it seems that if you scream, shout and intimidate people in an attempt to influence a national election regardless of the vote, it's free speech. When you act annoying on a conservative web forum, it's illegal and you get taken to court. Funny world.
Re:Free Republic: Oxymoron (Score:2)
There are guidelines posted by the owner of the forum over what is and isn't allowable -- objectionable posts (especially those with profanity or racist comments) are quickly removed when discovered, usually within minutes. Repeat offenders are temporarily or permanently banned.
--
God-given rights (Score:2)
I'll not dispute this, but for the purposes of discussion, it's interesting to discuss which god or gods our individual rights come from. For example, the right to keep and bear arms is almost certainly bestowed by the Hebrew wind god Yahweh, which currently holds the position of Christian God. This view is shared by virtually all sane historians and theologians. There are those that believe that the god Kali, worshipped by the Thugee, is the source of the right to bear arms, but most of those people are (quite frankly) batty.
The right to free speech most likely originated with Zeus. Most of the other gods that have existed in the past have been very restrictive when it comes to speech, placing arbitrary and draconian limitations on what can and cannot be said. Zeus was/is more (pardon the term) liberal in this sense. Ditto for freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc. The bulk of the evidence suggests that all freedoms related to expression originated from the Greek pantheon. This was refreshing to people after having to endure thousands of years of warlike gods that did not look kindly on free expression.
At any rate, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but it's a topic that interests me.
Re:Speaking as someone peripherally involved. (Score:2)
Ever hear of "Uncle Tom" Blacks? The ones who side with Whitey to the detriment of his/her own people? We Chicanos have people like that in our own community -- we call them "Tio Taco"...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:Leftist vs Rightist (Score:2)
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:You're not even worth the effort (Score:2)
From Merriam-Webster: racism [m-w.com] 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
You claim that African American culture breeds ignorance, therefore it is obvious that you feel that they should subscribe to your "superior" White American culture.
You, sir are a racist, you just don't have the balls to come out and say it openly like your skinheaded neo-Nazi brethren [stormfront.org]...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:Liberals (Score:2)
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:Tinfoil hats and baseball bats. (Score:2)
Besides, no one is fucking with your "freedom of association" rights. You can always join the Ku Klux Klan and move to Idaho.
Pendejo...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
FreeRepublic isn't . . . (Score:2)
I imagine that the defendant must have gone well beyond the pale for a court to grant such a motion. However, it is ironic that these folks couldn't themselves find more credible ways to monitor and moderate their own property.
It is the FreeRepublic who has acted inconsistentl (Score:2)
It would appear that it is the FreeRepublic, however, that has deviated from avowedly libertarian views by seeking court-ordered censorship of speech which they disdain, and not the denizens of Slashdot.
Brandeis had it right: the only proper remedy for bad speech is more and better speech. The marketplace of ideas does not require antitrust laws.
If actors, be they right-wing or left, cannot stand the heat of enlightened, reasoned argument and respond in kind, but must resort to hard-knocks battle tactics, this says more about the lack of intellectual quality of those positions than anything else.
Re:Liberals (Score:2)
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=2, Troll=3, Insightful=5, Funny=1, Overrated=2, Total=13
Just needs an "interesting" for a full house.
Re:FreeRepublic isn't . . . (Score:2)
This is the same nonsense that spammers use to justify themselves. No, freedom does not include rights to "free speech" that use other people's property without permission.
However, it is ironic that these folks couldn't themselves find more credible ways to monitor and moderate their own property.
They did -- they warned him that he was breaking the rules, and when he continued they told him to get lost. He sneaked back anyway under aliases, and got caught at it. If you warn off a repeated tresspasser and he keeps returning in disguise, wouldn't you eventually call the police?
/.
Re:I love politics (Score:2)
The server is property. The forum is information, and information is only property through copyright or patent.
What copyright or patent was violated here?
Trespassing isn't the right claim. Maybe fraud would be a better fit; making false representations in order to obtain a service. Or perhaps harassment.
(But of course, a right-leaning group is going to go for a property claim (however wrongheaded) since property rights are central to their philosophy (however wrongheaded).)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:Dos Attacks as Filabuster - free speech? (Score:2)
At issue here is that the rules of the forum were not being followed. The United Sates Senate allows filabuster as a strategic tool. The House or Representatives does not. Neither of them allow you to just walk in and participate in the debate. The issue is following the rules of the forum not making court rulings about the s/n ratio in a given place.
_____________
Re:I love politics (Score:5)
Sure, like the known hecklers that got thrown in jail for 48 hours when Bubba Clinton came to town last fall.
Kind of hard to scream and shout when you're held in jail without charges, then released when Bubba's gone.
When you act annoying on a conservative web forum, it's illegal and you get taken to court.
When you write annoying opposing thoughts to a liberal president, it's not illegal and you get thrown in jail without going to court.
However, when you put metal spikes in trees trying to kill loggers, hack opposing websites to supress speech that you don't like, steal campus newspapers that prints things you don't agree with, torch expensive houses built on land you think should go back to the wild to deprive people of their homes, send bombs to conservative businessmen who you believe don't appreciate the environment, break into research labs and set infected animals free, it's considered "progressive activism" and is regarded by the social elite to be an acceptable means to the end?
Funny world.
I'd have to agree...
Re:Acceptable Use Policies (Score:3)
The story that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet has been thoroughly debunked by Phil Agre in http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore. and.the.Inte.html [somewhere.com]
and
rebutted further later [syr.edu]
That meme was a creation of Declan McCullagh, a "reporter" for Wired News who is a fanatical Libertarian [hotwired.com] so extreme that he managed to have a chapter of a book using him as a poster-boy for Libertarian ideologues [code-is-law.org] If you think I'm just flaming, this aspect of his fabricated story being a Liberatarian hit-piece was extensively discussed in a debunking by Salon [salon.com]
After Declan McCullagh was repeatedly taken to task for his hatchet-job, over more than year, by everyone who was there, from Dave Farber [interesting-people.org] to Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf [interesting-people.org] he finally grudgingly retracted [wired.com]
But people still repeat it, because urban legends never die.
Re:Liberals (Score:2)
-brennan
Re:I love politics (Score:3)
As a card-carrying liberal, I and everyone I know deplore the exact actions you're referring to, most of which are crimes committed by extreme environmentalists. Funny, though, how you use their actions to tar just the entire spectrum of "progressive activists."
Interesting that you're against people thrown in jail for expressing political views, yet you didn't once mention the peaceful protestors who were pepper-sprayed and beaten by police in Seattle protesting the WTO. Hmm. No doubt if you respond to this, you'll mention the .01% who were violent, rather than the people I'm talking about, who had their rights trampled on.
Ah, but no, since extreme environmentalists are liberals of a sort, and extreme environmentalists have committed terrorist acts, the entire liberal/progressive movement is made up of supporters of terrorism. Wow, what fabulous, amazing logic! Thanks for clearing that up; armed with this new knowledge, I'll pick up a couple of Molotov cocktails on my way home from work.
-brennan
Re:"Allegations" (Score:2)
From personal experience, a lot of the most annoying trolls do their damage from public terminals at libraries, etc. And what are you going to do if he's using say EarthLink. Are you really going to send an e-mail to EarthLink and say "somebody who uses you as an ISP but posts here using a Hotmail account is being abusive. Please make him stop"??
Some of this isn't making sense (Score:2)
Re:Speaking as someone peripherally involved. (Score:2)
Many of the articles on the site border on disgraceful racism
WTF does this mean? That because someone posts an article that you *think* (note the key word, as liberals tend to think most anything is racist) is racist, the whole site is bad?
There are many black and asian people on that board for your information.
BTW, they don't "clamp down on those who think differently" as I often go there, and post opposing view points, there is the occasional idiot, but there are those everywhere.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
Re:Free Republic: Oxymoron (Score:2)
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
Re:FreeRepublic isn't . . . (Score:2)
Got what he deserved (Score:2)
Good for them I say.
Re:I love politics (Score:2)
Re:"Endowed by our Creator" indeed! (Score:2)
From the Declaration of Independance:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
From the constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's clear that the document you are using for your argument is the Declaration of Independence, because it refers to Creator-granted inalienable rights. It doesn't, however, found anything. It breaks away from the British Empire.
The preamble from the constution uses very different language. God doesn't even get a mention. It's stated pretty clearly that the document is created for the benefit of the People of the United States, which even at the time included a healthy amount of Non-Christians. Considering that God doesn't seem to have a SSN, a mailing address, a residence, or any paid tax returns, we can conclude that God is not a US Citizen. Thus, the constitution is not written for him. I'm sure that they'd be willing to throw in an "equal rights for deities" clause, but since we can't even figure out where God lives, we have no idea which Senator represents him, and thus no place to start.
As for patriotism: here's a clue. You're not one. Your blind attack on the larger half of US Citizens (liberals and/or non-cristians) indicates that your actions have a lot more to do with the destruction rather than the preservation of the US. Jesus Christ was a nice guy. You are a dick. Thank you for playing.
I feel for the troll. Someone smack my hand.
Re:Speaking as someone peripherally involved. (Score:3)
If Aldridge can start his own competing web site--which he can--and if he can put on it his views--which he can--then his freedom of speech has not been infringed. Free Republic set up their own web site, and tried to post their own views. Aldridge made every effort he could to stop them. Thus, Free Republic's free speech rights were violated by Aldridge.
Chris Beckenbach
Re:Free Republic used racial slurs (Score:2)
Re:I love politics (Score:2)
Suing AC's? (Score:3)
Free speech reality check (Score:2)
Re:I love politics (Score:2)
Although the web forum is open to the public, it is hosted on a private server and as such is technically private property. Thus, if someone such as Aldridge is told not to come back, they can be held liable for trespassing if they do.
---
The AOL-Time Warner-Microsoft-Intel-CBS-ABC-NBC-Fox corporation:
Re:Free Republic used racial slurs (Score:2)
And of course, there's vandal.
Re:I'm a member, and not a nut. (Score:2)
I'm a member, and not a nut. (Score:4)
Yes, FR can be a bit out there at times, but so can Slashdot. Think of it as an ultra-conservative Slashdot. They post links to stories, (and *cough* usually include the entire story, so you don't need to go read the article then come back to FR in order to comment on it) the stories are typically stuff you won't find on other news sites (it's fun and pointless trying to find Conservative stories on most news sites), and it is an eyeopener. Go take a look.
So now that it's /.ed... (Score:2)
Slashdot case (Score:2)
However I would doubt that this is necessary at this point, as I find moderation perfectly sufficient to keep them out of users' hair.
(Not trying to start a moderation good/bad thread... just noting that /. seems to do better in this regard.)
Ooops, (Score:2)
Liberals (Score:2)
They claim to be tolerant, but in fact they are only tolerant of opinions that match with their own - those that agree, for instance, that sodomy is aceeptable behavior, or that we should countenance massive criminal activity because the poor dears were mistreated as children.
As ever, we find the true face of the liberal revealed - cowardly and snakelike, favoring censorship, but doing so by malevolent underhand means - attempting to flood people promulgating their legitimate views with much garbage. I really think it's time that these people were exposed for the cowards they are. We have tolerated liberalism in all its manifest guises - its tolerance of petty and not so petty criminals, its insistence on screwing up our country - for many years now. Never have we attempted any such underhand tactics against them.
It appears clear that these liberals will stop at nothing in the pursuit of their own agenda - posting obscene messages, and so on, and even "targeting Free Republic's founder, Jim Robinson" in pursuance of "his stated goal of chasing Free Republic off the Internet". I have seen enough. I have tolerated their supposedly well-meaning activities, but I will not accept these kind of attacks.
Dos Attacks as Filabuster - free speech? (Score:2)
Rock on. C-Span is my new channel of record.
This is so much cooler than National Public Radio. Even their new "morning zoo" format [ridiculopathy.com] isn't this cool.
Re:Dos Attacks as Filabuster - free speech? (Score:2)
I mis-read that as C-Spam. Hmmm....
Why this is a good thing. (Score:3)
Regardless of their content, no individual has the right to slander a site. Apparently that is all that is real to the whole story, the guy basically took out his little tirade versus the eveeel "conservative" site and just invented whatever hyperbole he needed at the time.
Pleading the 5th in a civil suit is beyond belief, but alas its what happens when the ultra-left get pressed to act on facts instead of emotion. (this works just as well versus some of the ultra-right - but they are not as prevalent as some might think)
So why is this story on
The first rule of "freedom of speech" is that it does not give you freedom to slander, let alone freedom to violate anothers rights. It would no different than having someone constantly spam
Freedom of speech is very important, but you cannot have it without responsibility, and that is what this gentleman forgot. Its a very important ideal, even if you don't like the message.
Hey there Justin R is this you (Score:2)
I am also a left winger who appreciates reading news and views from those I disagree with
-perdida
Re:Liberals (Score:2)
Oh, come on, get over it already. This wasn't "Free Republic v. the Liberal Movement," it was "Free Republic v. One Major Nutcase." This was not any project of the DNC or any other garbage like that, just the activity of a single loon who (and here I wholeheartedly agree with you) wanted to violate the rights of others to express themselves. I don't really know the whole message of Free Republic beyond what has been mentioned here, but I don't need to; there is a community with a voice, and they have a right to speak, particularly on a forum website of their own creation and use.
And for those who would say that this injunction is censorship, I suggest you read the details and see just what was taking place. This guy was free to express his opinions for quite some time by merely posting normally; instead he clearly did attempt to disrupt the site to such a degree that it would have to close down entirely. He is the one attempting censorship, not them.
Re:"Being told to defend . . ." (Score:2)
And yet you applaud the central government's actions to remove this person from Free Republic's forums. I don't follow your logic.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free.
Who is to judge what an "inferior student" is? You? Me? The Gov.. oh, nevermind. I'm all for expelling violent students, but until every family can afford to send their children to private schools, public education remains a right for every citizen. That being said, IMHO secondary schools in this country should be flunking every third student for failure to pass the required curriculum. Not because they're different or disabled, but because they're lazy. There is a difference.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
Last I checked, "Federal stormtroopers" weren't raiding churches, temples, synagogues(sp, I'm an ignorant goyim) etc. Perhaps you're referring to school prayer? I would point you again to the Constitution you hold so dear, which guarantees the separation of church and state. Public prayer has no place in the public schools. If your child wants to pray silently they are certianly able to do that. Allowing public prayer during a government sponsored program is a tacit endorsement of one religon, with the implication that the government doesn't endorse the others. Sure, this seems extreme, but what happens when Susie, whose parents are Pagan, wants to pray to the Goddess? Not so simple when you're talking about anything other than "Christianity".
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
Last time I checked there were any number of excellent faith-based schools operating freely within the borders of the U.S. The government doesn't seem to be too concerned about it.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
You are free. Free to turn the TV off if you don't like what you see. Free to write to that program's advertisers and protest the content. And you're also free to choose any number of additional options for entertainment.
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
If you've got a problem with the way the laws are written, write your duly elected representative. If he/she decides that your opinions and views are worthy of legislation, and the majority of voters agree with them, then the law will be passed. If they don't, it won't. That's the way the system works.
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Their money's just as green as yours is.
I note that you use Karl Marx's term "antithesis" to make your argument.
It may surprise you to know I've never read Marx. "Antithesis" was the appropriate word for what I was attempting to express, the opposite of another idea, or "thesis".
Leftist UN internationalism is anathema to a free man. The liberals are nibbling away at our national sovereignty, piece by piece, and UN "police actions" are the thin end of the wedge.
Ok, now you're critically off topic. This started out as a debate over a troll being removed from a message board. Somehow it's evolved into the "UN-Liberal-Fascist Stormtrooper" conspiracy. Time to change the tinfoil in your hat, there, Sparky.
Re:Acceptable Use Policies (Score:3)
Gore does have a habit of overstatement -- I guess he's trying to prove he really is a politician rather than a Mr. Rogers impersonator. 8-) But it's well attested that he really was the first Congressman to understand that the Arpanet could be more than a chat line for goverment scientists. And unless you are a knee-jerk conservative, I doubt that you can look up the whole story and then claim that Gore's overstatements are worse than every other politicians.
There were some really good reasons to vote against Gore, but the hoopla about "inventing the internet" certainly wasn't one.
Acceptable Use Policies (Score:4)
One problem here is that we have a URL to the freepers' allegations, but nothing about Aldridge's response. Now and then I've noticed a conservative to twist the truth, or even to (gasp!) lie. (For instance, Gore never said he "invented" the internet.) Obviously Aldridge didn't convince the judge, but maybe the judge is a conservative Republican too...
Re:Liberals (Score:2)
And from reading all the posts on FR in response to one of the posts from this crazy guy, it seems he did his job of pissing everyone off. Bad karma posters only get recognition when people argue with them. Ignore people like that and they will stop, or find someone else who will listen to the endless lunatic ranting. FR obviously gave this guy a lot of attention, even though it was negative. So if he was receiving so much attention, why did they have to ban him? If their own conservative crowd couldn't ignore him, I would say they have issues of their own to deal with too.
However, if he was actually causing disruption to the site, DoS attacks, email spams, etc. I would have to say they were well within their rights to legally order him to 'stay off' their private property.
Oops. (Score:2)
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a70c1b007e0
Each time Aldridge re-registers, he agrees to abide by the User Agreement. Aldridge then proceeds to violate the User Agreement by posting lewd and obnoxious messages.
It's pretty clear that he does not agree to abide by the "User Agreement". He merely clicks a button near a statement that he either doesn't read or reads and disagrees with. The button might even say something like "I Agree". Silly button.
--Blair
Re:Liberals (Score:3)
Personally, I feel that at the end of the day, most "liberals" want the same thing "conservatives" want, good food, good love, and good entertainment. It's just that the politics and the path we choose get in the way of the end.
Bad Monkey (Score:2)
Re:"Endowed by our Creator" indeed! (Score:2)
By rejecting the holy and spiritual basis for our Constitution, you reject the Constitution as well.
So what you are saying is you want to get rid of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. It sounds alot like you want to suspend the Constitution, that does not sound like a patriot to me. That sounds like a Facist.
By all reasonable standards, you are not a patriot, nor even a citizen -- yet you demand the same rights and privileges as men who believe in the constitution.
Re:"I know not what course others may take . . ." (Score:3)
We have earned our rights. The liberals have earned nothing.
You are wrong, if it were not for liberals fighting for freedom, we would have no freedom of religion, our children would be indoctrinated into christianity at very young age by forced prayer in school. There would be no freedom of speech, anything and everything that had anything to do with sex would be banned. It would illegal to be gay. The war on drugs would have turned our country into a military state and the constitution all but suspended. 99% of all the wealth would belong to 1% of the population and the rest of us would be working for 50 cents an hour in sweat shops. Women would be second class citizens, not only would abortion be illegal, so would any form of birth control.
To extend the rights of free men to conservatives is to institute a immoral military state. I, for one, refuse to do so.
Yes this is flamebait and I am a troll, please moderate accordingly.
Re:Seventy percent of all Liberals are incoherent. (Score:2)
"Cussards and reprobates" indeed! I couldn't have said it better myself. Indeed, indeed, let them retreat into their weird fantasies of "moons" and "native Americans", let them destroy themselves . . .
And of course you are correct: Slashdot will be renewed. And the time is fast approaching.
"Being told to defend . . ." (Score:2)
As I understand it the core tenet of conservatism is the freedom to live one's life free from governmental interference.
That is correct. We have devoted our "lives, liberties, and sacred honor" to limiting the power of the central government. This will again be a free nation only when power is excercised at the local level, for the benefit of the community.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Being told to defend a nation or a Constitution you may or may not believe in seems to be the antithesis of this concept.
I note that you use Karl Marx's term "antithesis" to make your argument. Predictable. In any case, you are correct: We firmly and unequivocally reject all attempts to force us to fight and die for other nations. Leftist UN internationalism is anathema to a free man. The liberals are nibbling away at our national sovereignty, piece by piece, and UN "police actions" are the thin end of the wedge.
It is intolerable that free American men should be conscripted into the service of foreign and barbaric governments.
"Endowed by our Creator" indeed! (Score:3)
" . . .inalienable rights are endowed by our creator . . ."
No, we are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator. But you were at least trying to quote the Declaration, so I'll take the thought for the deed and let it slide.
The problem here is that you and the rest of the liberals do not acknowledge your Creator. So how then can you appeal to Him for these rights? You can't. By rejecting the holy and spiritual basis for our Constitution, you reject the Constitution as well. Where does that leave you? Nowhere. By all reasonable standards, you are not a patriot, nor even a citizen -- yet you demand the same rights and privileges as men who fought and died for them.
You want "natural rights"? Here's a Natural Law instead: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch
Don't pretend to be naive. (Score:3)
when the rebels fought the men who kept them under their thumb in the revolutionary war, that was heroic.
but when the rebels fought the men who kept them under their thumb in Seattle, that's a bunch of long haired freaks.
You are correct on the first one, but in the second you drift off into absurd propaganda. Those so-called "long-haired freaks" (in fact, most of them were skinheads, the liberals' racist shock-troops) were not being kept under anyone's thumb. They were "protesting" against freedom. They were there to oppose the natural rights and liberties of business enterprises. They were fighting against the creation of wealth. They were fighting against the right to private property and freedom of association.
The dogmatic anti-prosperity/anti-freedom ideology of the Left is hardly comparable to the noble principles set forth by our Founding Fathers.
Your entire argument is meaningless gibberish. Reasoning by analogy is a bad idea: The results are rarely valid, and even then only by accident.
Seventy percent of all Liberals are incoherent. (Score:3)
It's sad, but true: Statistics don't lie.
Er, what?! (Score:3)
I wasn't trying to quote anything.
Be that as it may, "endowing" a "right" with anything (you didn't specify what) is a waste of energy. I mean, like, that's not what "endow" means, dude.
Are you saying that God plays partisan politics?
God prefers those who keep His Law. If one party does so, and the other does not, why then quite naturally God will tend to prefer the members of the former to those of the latter.
That's an obvious truth, but it doesn't have much to do with "partisan politics" as you understand it: God's not sitting up there saying, "My team, right or wrong!" He's saying, "My team, because the only way to be on it is to be right in the first place." See the difference?
This has nothing to do with "diversity", "tolerance", or "broad-mindedness": Those slogans are all red herrings. Would you be "tolerant" of somebody who bombed your city? No. Some things are just plain wrong.
By what right do YOU decide who is and isn't a patriot, much less even a citizen?
Simple common sense. Imagine you're running a business. Imagine that one of your employees sets your office on fire. Would you consider that person a good and loyal servant, or a dangerous nut? Would you give him a raise, or fire him? You'd fire him. You'd get rid of the dumb bastard, because even if he believes that he is right, he is still a dangerous lunatic. So it is with the liberals: They are devoted to destroying the foundations of our nation. We have a right to act in self-defense, whether you like it or not.