FREE REPUBLIC ADMITS IT IS PRO-WAR AND CENSORS ALL POSTS NOT IN ACCORD WITH US GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA
1. 'Free Republic' can't admit anything, it can't talk. It's not even a living creature, much less a human being.
2. Free Republic cannot 'censor' anything, but its management can.
3. FR management does not censor ALL posts of ANY particular point of view, much less antiwar posts. Ana Covington's work is posted here as are some others.
4. What is 'government propaganda?' Presumably, in order for JimRob to know what the government wants posted, and so use the information to make sure he is 'in accord' with the government, the government must have sent him a list of propaganda points. I have seen no such list, nor is there any evidence his accusers have seen such a list. If they have obtained an official government 'talking point' list, let's see it. Let us see which agency issued it and which official approved the list. Let us also see proof that the list was issued to FR and proof that the list is being followed, and proof that ALL posts which disagree are being deleted. But there is no such list issued by government, so to be intellectually honest, no one knows what the government 'propaganda' is. The closest one can come is to limit all posts strictly to repeating Rumsfield's, Ridge's, or Bush's responses to the press, and anyone who has been on line here knows that that isn't the only thing that appears here, because news articles from throughout the world of credibility or no, including Al-Jazeera, Debka, Reuters, AP, Hindustan times, Wash Post, Xinhua, Wash Times, etc, are linked here or posted in part or in full. these sources may not be called 'US government propaganda,' since they are not US government sources, and in some cases as with Xinghua the sources are owned by another government (and an often hostile one at that).
5. As a matter of fact, the very fact that I'm replying to this very thread pretty much means that the accusers are incorrect... the thread is still here and it is not in accord with 'government propaganda.'
6. So what this really comes down to is that a poster wants to claim that the deletion of HIS posts is somehow a bad thing, when in truth a 'bad thing' would be if someone cannot build their own website and manage material as they see fit. It would be a 'bad thing' if there was a rule that a web site owner could not delete whatever he pleased, but had to keep providing bandwidth to others for free, just in order to avoid criticism for 'censorsing' his own site. But it would also be 'censorship' of the web site owner if he was not permitted to freely pick and choose material in crafting a web site to support his own personal views or to suit his own purposes.
And this was all just from the headline.
Note that the author cannot claim that he himself is 'censored.' He cannot claim such because he himself can post his material on thousands of web sites of his choice, and even send it to printed newspapers or other media outlets for publication, or, if all else fails, establish his own media outlet to publish whatever he pleases. He has posted his own views here too, in the past, and these views were hardly pro-government. How do I know? Do a search on Rivero and freerepublic and you will see loads of material he has posted here in the past, very little if any in support of government or government policy.
The poster is probably (in my opinion) trying to imply that not only are his threads deleted, but that he has a 'right' to post whatever he wishes, any time he wishes, anywhere he wishes, and that no one else has a right to restrict him in any way, not even on their own property. Thet is akin to the King of England claiming he is censored because Thomas Paine wouldn't give him equal time.
If Rivero doesn't get his way 100% of the time he wants to claim 'censorship.' Well sure, he was being 'censored' but only on this web site at the moment, or rather, he's been banned for whatever reasons the owner of the site has in mind. Is that bad? No, not really. Censorship is only bad if a person is prevented from putting out their own political opinions by government, in such a way that the victim may not be able to voice his views in the conventional way, even using his own resources. This would require government action, and as we know, the US government has no power to shut up Rivero.
In order to properly 'censor' a post, one must be able to censor it wherever it appears, not merely on one web site. We must be able to follow the individual posting such material anywhere on the World Wide Web, and get his threads deleted. We must be able to insure that no newspaper anywhere in the world The accuser may go and publish whatever he pleases, and prevent him from purchasing or using copy machines,r fax machines, and printing presses. No one has the authority to do this, not Jim Rob, and not the US or state governments.
1. 'Free Republic' can't admit anything, it can't talk. It's not even a living creature, much less a human being.Rummy, is that you?