Posted on 11/21/2002 12:16:16 AM PST by Marine Inspector
PALEOCONSERVATIVES often refer to "the limits of permissible dissent" in describing the struggle to hold on to their views in the realms of the media and academia against the censure of both the left and the "mainstream" right. Now, this struggle has been extended into the realm of the internet, the supposed last frontier of unregulated speech and capitalism. Indeed, we may be witnesses, as Frederick Jackson Turner would say, to the closing of this frontier, not just because of the collapse of the dot-com economy but because of the new limits imposed on speech and content, which will only become more pronounced as the War on Terrorism progresses.
In 1996, Fresno, California, resident and internet surfer Jim Robinson had a problem: His posts on Prodigy message hoards and chat rooms, particularly his strong criticisms of President Bill Clinton, were being censored by Prodigy's administrators. So he started his own web site—Free Republic (www.freerepublic.com).
Free Republic was more than just an ordinary message board in the early settlement of the internet. Surfers could post whole articles from publications and make them topics of discussion and debate. And it was more than just another chat room. Free Republic’s likeminded members could be connected from across the country to organize activist projects and events. ln 1998, when many Republicans wanted to ignore Kenneth Starr’s report on the Clinton scandals rather than deal with its charges, Free Republic members (or "Freepers," as they call themselves) lit up the congressional phones and organized demonstrations that influenced Republicans in the House to vote for articles of impeachment. And it was the Freepers, not the GOP, who organized the demonstrations of conservatives down in Florida during the 2000 presidential vote recount.
Over 60,000 people have been registered members of Free Republic, the largest conservative-oriented website in the world. Members are a diverse lot: independents, Republicans, libertarians, (large "L" and small), neocons, paleocons, Buchanan Brigaders, Keyes supporters and everything in between. Even such prominent pundits as Justin Raimondo, Ann Coulter, Barbara Olson, and Lucianne Goldberg (known by her Freeper handle, "Trixie") have made frequent posts.
As in any frontier boomtown, however, with rapid growth came predictable problems. Some of the articles posted on the site came from racist or antisemitic web sites. Conspiracy theorists also made use of Free Republic. Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs. "Vanity posts" became more frequent, and flame wars among members became more intense, as the site split into factions during the 2000 presidential election. Overall, civility degenerated. Some members became concerned that Free Republic had become a virtual hangout for kooks. Matters came to a head in early 2000 when Robinson (or "JimRob") speculated on George W. Bush’s connection to the airport in Mena, Arkansas where drug and gun-running allegedly took place during the 1980’s. Matt Drudge then dropped Free Republic’s link from the Drudge Report, and Goldberg took 2.000 members with her to start her own Lucianne.com.
Robinson decided to clean up his website and, like any good sheriff, deputized a posse of site moderators to remove offensive posts, threads, and articles and to ban those who posted them. But they did not stop there. Soon, they had banned the posting of any articles from certain websites that they deemed taboo, such as VDare.com ("too divisive"), LewRockwell.com, DixieNet.org (the League of the South’s website) , and the Free State Project’s website (www.FreeStateProject.org)
It would be easy to conclude that Robinson and his monitors simply went overboard in an effort to clean up the excesses of Free Republic, but there is more to it than that.
Because of its significant growth, Free Republic costs $240,000 annually to maintain. As a non-profit, Free Republic depends on donors, large and small, for its survival. No doubt the embarrassment of being dropped from the Drudge Report and Goldberg’s public break with the site concerned Robinson, and lie feared that funds might dry up if his site were perceived to he on the fringe. In addition, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times sued Free Republic for copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court. It was only natural for Robinson and his site administrators to want to look good for prospective donors.
With so many posters banned, the diversitv of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders, Robinson has made it clear where he stands: "I see that the only Party capable of blocking arid defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close hat as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil."
Many banned Freepers have turned to such sites as Liberty Post (www.libertypost.org) and Liberty Forum (www.libertyforum.org) where members can post articles from anywhere and comment without interference from the thought police or fear of Siberian banishment. But Free Republic will still remain the 800-pound gorilla of conservative websites for some time, just as National Review has been for conservative magazines, despite being watered down. Frontiers, whether on land or in cyberspace, cannot survive when developers start plotting out the fencerows.
—Sean Scallon
Nope, its not me. I've never heard of him. I've heard of the Rockford Institute, but I'm not familiar with their magazine.
What makes this a "trash story"? It has a lot of positive things to say about FR. Sure, it offers some criticisms, too. But no one is above criticism, and there is always room for improvement no matter what the endeavor.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
How coy.
"...where members can post articles from anywhere and comment without interference from the thought police or fear of Siberian banishment."
Why don't you wait to whine about posts being deleted until it is done and not anticipate such?
I see your prediction didn't come true (except you claim for a few minutes early on).
Another chance to cry "censorship!" lost. Oh, well, better luck next time!
Ummm .. Did she work for Paul O'Neill in 1999 .. did Paul O'Neil work for the the Airports in 1999??? .. Did he work for the Government in 1999??
As for covering your butt .. umm I think is also called and investigation and gathering as much evidence as a person can to present as evidence when making a case ..
Like I said before .. I think there is more to this story then what is reported in that article
I don't know. You looking for a gig? From their website: mailto:tri@rockfordinstitute.org. Maybe you should write a response to this article and submit it to them.
In 1996, Fresno, California, resident and internet surfer Jim Robinson had a problem: His posts on Prodigy message hoards and chat rooms, particularly his strong criticisms of President Bill Clinton, were being censored by Prodigy's administrators. So he started his own web site—Free Republic (www.freerepublic.com).
Free Republic was more than just an ordinary message board in the early settlement of the internet. Surfers could post whole articles from publications and make them topics of discussion and debate. And it was more than just another chat room. Free Republic’s likeminded members could be connected from across the country to organize activist projects and events. ln 1998, when many Republicans wanted to ignore Kenneth Starr’s report on the Clinton scandals rather than deal with its charges, Free Republic members (or "Freepers," as they call themselves) lit up the congressional phones and organized demonstrations that influenced Republicans in the House to vote for articles of impeachment. And it was the Freepers, not the GOP, who organized the demonstrations of conservatives down in Florida during the 2000 presidential vote recount.
Over 60,000 people have been registered members of Free Republic, the largest conservative-oriented website in the world. Members are a diverse lot: independents, Republicans, libertarians, (large "L" and small), neocons, paleocons, Buchanan Brigaders, Keyes supporters and everything in between. Even such prominent pundits as Justin Raimondo, Ann Coulter, Barbara Olson, and Lucianne Goldberg (known by her Freeper handle, "Trixie") have made frequent posts.
Yes, the article offers some criticisms, but on the whole I'd say its pretty favorable.
Good idea.
Criticisms? Flaming falsehoods.
Sorry, you don't get off that easily. The "blatant lie" could not be produced, so now you change it around to being ambiguous and implied. You're wrong. It's ok. You can admit it. It won't hurt.
The chronology is thus:
At reply #55 at LibertPost:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readarticle.cgi?101+6114#C187
Marine Inspector states he sees his FR account has been reactivated. He then receives comments from other posters who clearly assume he had been banned and reinstated. That understanding was never corrected my Marine Inspector. In fact he assures one respondent that "this" (meaning Liberty Post for those of you who can't follow trains of thought) is his home now. In fact, I just re-read some of that thread and that impression was cultivated by Marine Inspector, though he does not explicitly say he was banned. There is no way to deny that is the impression he wanted to convey.
Then you get to his reply #105 on that same thread where he says:
I just posted this on TOS.
Lets see how long it lasts. And how long I last.
Now, clearly he wanted to stir the pot over here. Fine and well, but what's with the wide-eyed "I only want to stir discussion" garbage? Plus he again implies he'll be banned, thus massaging his earlier implication that he was reinstated now after a banning.
See?
This is the crux of Sean Scallon's argument. He laments the closing of the "frontiers" of Wild West-style Internet discussions by the settlers--in other words civilization has taken root.
But he explains it away as Jim being motivated by money, not as trying to advance a political agenda.
Those whose political ideas get beaten in the arena rarely wish to acknowledge that their ideas (or themselves) are at fault. The profit motive or self-aggarandizement is always a convenient excuse to smear the victors with.
Jim's goals for Free Republic have been consistent. The author is right that FR is "the 800lb. gorilla" of conservative Internet boards and gives high praise by comparing FR to the National Review. Like NR, FR started out quite small. FR has grown into the "800lb. gorilla" it is by steadfastly pursuing its goals and maintaining standards that make the achievement of those goals possible.
Without those standards, FR would be a marginal political effort. Instead it is a respected, influential force in national politics--just ask Al Gore and his political advisor Karenna Gore Schiff.
You don't think Bush is doing a good job?
She hasn't worked since.
There's no way to 'cover your butt' in U.S. Customs or TSA. Congress has removed protection for 'whistle-blowers'in those agencies.
You blow the whistle and you're out of a job. What's worse is members of the public you were trying to protect will keep saying, "There's more to this story than meets the eye." Just as if you really were guilty of something you should have been fired for.
The U.S. Customs Dept. made an example of this woman and your response is she probably did something to deserve it.
When you get an opportunity to blow the whistle someday, let us know how it turns out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.