So he only supports *some* parts of the u.s. constitution...right? Is that what youre saying?
If you don’t like FR’s pro-God, pro-life, pro-family mission, you’re on the wrong forum.
No I believe he supports ALL parts of the constitution.
The Constitution supports private property rights.
Jim owns Free Republic, it is his property. He can set site rules for people being on Free Republic. Or for being forced to leave the site.
If you create your own site you will have the ability to say anything you want to say without anyone zotting you. But even then it will be limited by libel laws and fair use and copyright laws.
You can actually post anything you want here, but you also have to accept the consequences of doing that. If you violate the site rules with a posting you could be kicked off the site. Sites that have member rules and such are not a brand new phenomena. Nobody forces you to post on FR or to even visit here to read others’ posts.
For the particular instance here, tell me, what part do you disagree with? Are you pro-abort, or are you pro-homosexual, or are you a big government person? If this is the thing that gets under your skin, it might be good to know what part you’re objecting to. But if you are just upset that Free Republic is a privately owned site and the guy who owns the site has rules you don’t think are fair, it sounds like YOU are not excited about people being able to determine use rules for their own property.
Remember the Constitution binds the government. It is a limiter on government, not private businesses or individuals. The government cannot stop you writing a book. However your employer can fire you if your free speech activities at work violate their work policies. The government can’t take away your right to self defense, but a private business can tell you you cannot enter their store with a gun on your hip, just as a person could tell you you cannot come into their house armed.