Since you people aren't in power yet, Messrs. Robinson are still allowed to decide what is and what is not proper on THEIR SITE. When you ascend to power, you may dictate who is free and who is not for the entire country.
Until then, VDARE is free to post what it wants--on IT'S SITE. And FR is free to decide that racism is not a viable philosophy on IT'S SITE.
Hope this answers your foolish charges.
Off to remedial civics class with you - the First Amendment doesn't apply to a private entity like FR.
There is an ominous cloud hanging over the First Amendment at the "Free" Republic. We can no longer discuss controversial issues like immigration and affirmative action without worrying about being banned from the site. JimBob will receive no more contributions from this FReeper.As I posted on the other thread:
...There is no good reason to antagonize the host of this forum, IMHO.In my experience, you can get MUCH better results by working WITH people in authority than you can by trying to fight against them, particularly if they are on OUR SIDE, as Jim is - for the most part. :o)
As you certainly must know, "censorship" and the First Amendment are issues that apply primarily to government-controlled forms of expression, and generally NOT to privately operated concerns like Free Republic.Not sure exactly why Jim is against VDARE, but if he does not want their stuff posted here, we will need to work around that - for now - unless and until we can get him to change his mind about that.
I am a BIG proponent of PRAGMATISM. Let us accept whatever help Jim Robinson is currently prepared to provide in the promotion of Michelle's ideas, and remember that MANY folks who have to deal with the realities of the intellectual marketplace need to operate as Caesar's wife: above even the APPEARANCE of impropriety, from http://www.dl.ket.org/latinlit/mores/religion/bonadea.htm:
Bona Dea Scandal
Each year the Vestal Virgins, together with a select group of patrician ladies, conducted a secret rite to the Bona Dea. Traditionally this ceremony was conducted in the home of the Pontifex Maximus.
In the year (62 BC) following the consulship of Cicero and the destruction of the Catalinarian conspiracy the office of Pontifex Maximus (a political not religious appointment) was held by none other than Julius Caesar. According to tradition, all males, even male animals, were excluded from the event. Caesar was of course absent for this particular evening when the ceremony, planned by his wife Pompeia, is said to have occurred.
At this point, the story becomes part fact and part fiction. Many have written of the scandal over the years and I have tried to give you what I view as common theory. Since Pompeia was herself not the most stable of women, Caesar's respected and noble mother, Aurelia,was in charge of the details. She noticed one woman, heavily cloaked, tall and with an affected tone in her voice. She prided herself in knowing every guest and could not place this individual. She asked a servant girl to keep an eye on the unknown guest who lost control of his affected voice and was discovered to be a man. He escaped from the house without definitive recognition.
Rumors flew. No one doubted but that it was Clodius. It was not unlike him to play wild pranks even with so sacred an event at this ceremony. One story reported that he and Pompeia were having an affair and she had smuggled him into her house. This was a difficult rumor to deter. An impiety had occurred and conservative Romans were very upset. Caesar divorced Pompeia with a quote of unknown origins "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." There was no proof of Pompeia's involvement, just suspicion...more
I see no "cloud" hanging over the First Amendment here; No one is preventing you from setting up your own public soapbox to say what you want.
As "owner" of this little community that we call Free Republic, Jim has determined that there are a number of sites whose content is not welcome. He has said nothing of the subject matter.
I think he was polite, yet firm on the matter. That certainly does not indicate a bias as far as I can determine -- unless I've missed something somewhere.