Posted on 02/11/2005 10:55:36 AM PST by Jim Robinson
The shot heard around the Internet has been fired on FreeRepublic.com The owner Jim Robinson and his moderators have launched a sniper style purge against members that disagree with the President’s ‘guest worker’ amnesty or support more control of illegal immigration. Free Republic is an amazing tool for those looking for a good debate and news from around the country.
The problem for the administration of the site is that their creation is allowing the participants to learn that the Bush immigration record and plans are shockingly out of line with the views of most conservatives. The management’s answer to this conflict between the majority of conservatives and the influence of the White House on their Web site has become electronic executions and censorship.
Members and readers of Free Republic would be surprised to know that many members of their community have fallen silent on the discussions about illegal immigration lately because free speech is an illusion on FR.com. They are silent because they have been banned from the Web site without warning, cause, or explanation in most cases. For weeks the moderators have been suspending and banning new members that chimed in quickly on the immigration debates.
Now this trend has broadened as the first groups of long-term users were suspended or banned this past week. Although Robinson and his staff removed many members of the Free Republic community in the first few days of the purge, those that religiously support President Bush’s immigration plan, open borders and approve of public benefits for illegal aliens remain on the forum. Those that were banned were the members that wanted more done to control illegal immigration and a strict observance to the President’s Oath of Office.
Whew, for a minute there I thought everything in the article was true!!! /sarc
As far as 'Minuteman' goes, isnt it supposed to be a non-armed policing on private property?
Ive only seen a couple of small references, but it seemed to be well within the laws and more of a propaganda/protest attempt than 'vigilantism'...
That is the cutest picture!!!!
I'm with you, JR. Locked, loaded, and ready...
Is it possible that maybe it isn't influence? Maybe he thinks this approach is the best way to solve the problem.
Conservatives can disagree on issues. It's not just immigration. William F. Buckley favors giving in when it comes to the war on drugs, and Bill Bennett doesn't. Does that make either of them less conservative than the other?
Rush Limbaugh recently backed Howard Stern in his disputes with the FCC - often saying he was worried about the precedent being set. So did Sean Hannity. Yet Michael Medved was in favor of the crackdown and called the fears overblown. Who is the less conservative of the two sides on that issue?
Dick Armey and Steve Forbes back a flat tax. John Linder is pushing a NRST. Which of those two camps is the "less conservative" camp? Can anyone really tell?
I will admit we have problems vis-a-vis the border with the Mexico. I find the status quo to be unacceptable. But part of fixing the problem is admitting we might have passed bad laws, and they should be fixed. The President is proposing a fix, and it includes what I think has been falsely labeled an amnesty. I think it is, for all intents and purposes, a very reasonable "class-action plea bargain" that is an important PART of the solution. We do need to enforce the law, but the laws should not be conflicting with the concepts of right and wrong that the majority of the American people seem to have.
To be blunt, I do think that the racism line was crossed on a number of immigration threads, and I an FULLY in support of the bannings and the restrictions on posting content from certain sources. I've read a few of them and think that those sites definitely did not have a problem with racism - or giving out and out racists a forum. When i tried to bring that up, I was accused of race-baiting. When I asked one poster, later banned, about some comments by Sam Francis that resulted in his termination at the Washington Times, I not only didn't get a straight answer, I was accused of playing a "gotcha game" for asking what was a simple question.
What else was I supposed to conclude at that point? That it was all a misunderstanding? I wasn't about to. Instead, I have concluded that there might be something to the concerns I had, and so I judged their positions accordingly, and I probably will retain that judgement for a long time. I wish it had not come to that, but in my opinion, there was not much choice.
I will also state that when someone is calling a spade a spade, they are stating a fact. That goes for saying someone is a racist. Calling a racist a racist is not a personal attack - it is merely stating a fact (at least as a person making that statement see it). False accusations of that nature do exist, but in a number of cases, at least those which have drawn complaints here, there is, IMHO, reason for people to think there might be racism. Not all racists wear KKK robes or look like skinheads. Not all racists are white (see Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton), either.
When you have a large number of conservatives, these disagreements will come up. One conservative might have a different point of view than another. That should NEVER be reason to personally attack or question whether or not someone is a conservative (well, outside the usual trolls like MurryMom).
Nearly all of the time, they are not being influenced by anything than a desire to enact a workable solution to problems facing this country - I might not have been able to tell the difference in every case of that, but I believe that I have tried to do so. I just ask for the same courtesy from others.
As far as being banned, I highly doubt I'm going to be banned for disagreeing with the President's plan - I'm not going to agree with everything he says, ever! (Although I do agree with 90% of it.)
I don't feel stifled in the least. This article is bunk.
Looks like Gheen is Ghone!
That is funny!!! And, I love your tagline!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I have participated in many discussions here on FR, about immigration, and have seen very opinionated, extremist positions on both sides.
And I never saw any of them banned. The only posters that get banned are the ones that violate the POSTING GUIDELINES.
Ok Mr. factual - In the posting I saw, you put up something with a title like "Attack: What's up with this?" or something to that effect. When an innocent FReeper like myself clicked on the link, it went to your site with the hit piece. How is that not tooting your own horn and trying to drum up traffic?
True...and on us as individuals.
My code of conduct for posting is:
1.) Communicate as if you were face to face with that person.
2.) Express yourself in a way that would not embarass you if your mother read it or if it came up in a job interview.
Just kiddin'. Actually, I'm jealous, 'cause I have this nice zot graphic I've been dying to use, but just don't seem to hit the right threads at the right times. Some day though...
Looks like you spoke too soon. LOL.
What about your previous accounts? Were they banned too?
I guess we'll never know since it appears that I'm replying to a pile of ashes.
I happen to support the Presidents plan on immigration, but I have taken a few not-so Conservative positions. For example, I firmly oppose the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I've never been afraid to state it, even tho I get ganged up on when stating it. :)
I do think occasionally there are some extremists on here that can turn off the larger mainstream group that resides here. For example, occasionally there is some viciousnes towards Muslims on here. I took out my frustrations on these folk on this thread :) :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1282247/posts?q=1&&page=39#39
But, like I said, it's only a small group. I for one think this is the best site on the web. Thanks and keep it rockin!
Jim,
So glad you posted this. When you pull a thread for these reasons, I think it would be good to put a link to this thread in the reason it was pulled. (Like you do when you pull a duplicate post.) I came across one of those threads earlier, right after it was pulled. I managed to pull up the offending first post, and followed the link to the article that accused you of wild purges. I was able to find several false accusations, but it took me a little while to find this thread, to see what is really going on. The rumor mill is busy. A link from the pulled post to here would have saved me exposure to all that garbage in my search for the truth.
Not really. My observation is that FR purges members who have made jerks of themselves.
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.