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 siteFree 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 Republics likeminded members could be connected from across the country to organize activist projects and events. ln 1998, when many Republicans wanted to ignore Kenneth Starrs 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. Bushs connection to the airport in Mena, Arkansas where drug and gun-running allegedly took place during the 1980s. Matt Drudge then dropped Free Republics 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 Souths website) , and the Free State Projects 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 Goldbergs 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
One like myself, who refuses to be caught up in the fly-by-night 8-track revolution.
But he's still here posting.
I'm rethinking my stance on drug legalization.
?
I was not following the event you refer to. So many people were putting links to Liberty Post up that I finally went there today and read the thread I gave the URL to in my post. If you read my reply again perhaps you'll see why I wrote what I did.
I have read FR a LONG time but your little group is not one I follow. It's just the way you come off in your posts.
HEAR! HEAR!
You sound like a person after my very own heart. That's what I'm talking about!
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
I read your reply quite a few times and then I followed your link to search for the ever-so-elusive blatant lie, only to be disappointed once again. Where are the posts you referred to where people were assuming he was banned?
your little group is not one I follow.
I don't belong to any certain group. It would just be nice to have accuracy when talking about someone and something that can be so easily researched.
The LONE WOLF. LOL
What does it matter if you did or didn't use the term? It's perceptions and impressions that count, right?
Now I'm seeming to ascribe a term to you? I never ascribed that term to you. I clearly ascribed it to nopardons.
Let's review shall we? The idea was tossed out that MI had lied and stated on LP he was banned from here. No such comment exists. It doesn't matter what people tried to read between the lines and use to create strawman arguments or what impression they got from his post. The the original charge was not that they got the impression he was banned, but that he stated clearly as a lie that he was banned. You follow?
Is that some kind of a dog? Every Roscoe
I ever knew was a pooch,
I do.
She'll be back here at 3:30 am, if you ping her, after her hubby kicks her out of bed for snoring again.
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.