True, but it would never be as good and important as yours!
Note: Even though I think you get a little heavy handed at times, I can see you often have no choice 
Posted on 05/16/2004 12:59:53 PM PDT by jmstein7
There is now a debate raging on FR about trolls, honest dissent, and the value of free speech. I would like to weigh in on this and then solicit opinions from all of you on the subject.
The First Amendment was a response to the English experience of viewpoint suppression by requiring licensing of the press – i.e. requiring pre-approval of books – the doctrine of construction treason, which held that writing can constitute treason, a capital offense, and the law of seditious libel, criminalizing unfavorable reporting of the government. However, the debate in the United States did not truly reach maturity until the early half of the 20th Century.
Justice Holmes (in, I believe, Abrams v. United States) famously averred that “[t]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Even opinions which we “loathe and believe to be fraught with death” should not be suppressed, “unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Alternatively, the self governance rationale posits that, because the general welfare depends on the citizens making enlightened decisions, in a democratic society, free expression and discussion are essential to deciding matters of public policy. The autonomy rationale holds that for an individual to regard himself as autonomous, he must see himself as free to decide which beliefs to hold. The First Amendment is also justified on the basis that it checks the abuse of power by public officials, it diffuses dissent by creating an atmosphere of open discussion, and it fosters a tolerant society.
I am inclined to agree with Justice Holmes – and that is why I support, as I think most FReepers do – honest dissent. Although such expression of opinion may make us angry, as the Court insinuated in Terminiello v. Chicago, the most valuable expression may well be that which because it is provocative and challenging, produces these emotions. This type of debate aids us in our perpetual search for the truth.
There is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. However, what we are concerned with is false statement of fact – this type of speech, particularly speech that is intended to be deceptive, adds nothing to public debate. False statements of fact, e.g. intentionally deceptive or libelous utterances, are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Deceptive or defamatory speech is “low value speech,” and it adds nothing constructive to the marketplace of ideas. This is why trolls are prohibited – because they add nothing to the debate and exist only to deceive and distort the truth we are seeking.
In a nutshell, we at FR do not support viewpoint discrimination. However, what we do ask for, at a minimum, is open and honest debate as we, together search for the truth. That is, per se, the value of free speech in a Free Republic.
"In Jim Robinson's home (Free Republic) I feel the same rules apply. He alone has the right to say what is allowed in his home, and we must respect that or leave!!"
This is not Jim Rob's home, however. Free Republic is a wonderful thing, it's gotten bigger than one person's personal website. This more like Jim Rob's Debating Society. he's built a public space that anyone browsing the net can amble into, that hundreds of folks post to every day. Lots of people now chip in money to support this internet Debating Society. The community, not just Jim Rob, now make what is FR.
So, we can defer to Jim Rob's vision since he's running it, but what that vision should be should be asked in terms of what is best for the whole FR community here.
"Comment #20 Removed by Moderator"
oh, the irony!
LOL
I'm not in charge vetting, no one is. And I'm not preaching to the choir. You should understand better than most why vetting would be necessary. Ultimately, if someone leaves in a huff, it's their failure. If they're banned, well, that's their failure too. An inability to appreciate that last point is a misunderstanding of terms like 'guest' and 'hospitality.'
True, but it would never be as good and important as yours!
Note: Even though I think you get a little heavy handed at times, I can see you often have no choice
I agree about the banning, but some bans have been very quick tempered. One night a young marine was banned for saying Reno investigated Clinton more than Bush did. I thought the ccomment was astute. He was banned for being a liberal. There is sometimes a mob reaction or quick trigger on these threads. All you have to do is have the wrong person cry to the moderator.
Since I state "If you are a troll", I'm covered. I don't get a tension headache or high blood pressure or ZOTTED.
!
86 regarding banning.
"On the other hand, the mods can be a little nuts sometime."
Agreed. Sometimes some nasty freeper will accuse one of "stalking" or some such nonsense, in an effort to get one banned, and the admin mods jump down your throat before investigating and finding out that the complainer is a liar. They do apologize when they are wrong, though.
Me too and he doesn't even know why he was ZOTTED for life.
We do have liberal larry..I just had a discussion with him today...He likes Sy Hersh.I always ping him to good news that is happening in Iraq (or the Saddam torture pictures today)! He doesn't get over the line much and I even managed to help educate him about communists in government during the McCarthy era once.
"In a nutshell, we at FR do not support viewpoint discrimination."
There are many people here who support viewpoint discrimination, and flame those who don't jump on whatever the bandwagon du jour is. It's gotten so unpleasant that I don't visit as often as I used to...
"The Secret Service has "protest zones" set up far away from the President. A man was arrested for having a "F U G W" sign. The mentality of "you are with us or you are against us" so prevelant nowadays stifles open debate."
Are you unaware that this was just as intense, if not more so, when the Clintons were in office? Haven't you read anything about Hillary and her "goon squad"? This sort of thing is nothing new...it's just that it's reported in the mainstream, liberal press now.
Why?
My point was why trolls should be banned and why it is good for FReepers to flame the h*ll out of them when the do come here. We need to keep reinforcing the righteous and justness of our cause. We are right, and our ideas and ideals must prevail. We just need to remember why we believe and fight for what we believe.
And, I have worked my hardest to help get President Bush re-elected... and I will continue to fight to do so.
I think, though, that we:
a) need to keep focusing on pounding Kerry and
b) need to set our sights on the main-stream media and expose it to the pulic for what it is -- a left-wing propaganda machine.
I don't know if I would have banned him under the circumstances you describe, but it is also not my call. Further, since I did not see that thread, I don't know if he was banned solely because of the circumstances you describe. Finally, I don't know if the banned poster was a young marine.
Beats the hell out of me.
LOL
Why do you feel that banning folks establishes the righteousness of our cause. To me it shows an unnecessary use of power for power's sake. If you want to show the correctness of your position use words and engage the heathen interloper. What we have now is a game and encourages groupthink and a mob mentality.
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.