[DoodleBob]

Let’s consider this reality re: “censorship:” JimRob “censors” on FR.

It’s his property.

If we don’t like it, we can go to DU or Lucianne’s site etc.

I dislike some of the nonsense that flies on FR, ranging from idiocracy (usually reposted from Slay News or Gateway Pundit) to blatant racism. The upside to this non-censorship is I know who to avoid and who’s a dope (and I’m sure they feel the same way about me).

I’ve also seen lots of nonsense getting removed.

Net-net-net, it’s worth coming back.

Give the govt the keys, and there is NO alternative.

[MinorityRepublican]

I dislike some of the nonsense that flies on FR, ranging from idiocracy (usually reposted from Slay News or Gateway Pundit) to blatant racism.

I've noticed some of that, especially with blatant racism. On the bright side, some of the notorious posters got suspended/banned.

[Tom in SFCA]

We are not talking here about what individual site owners do or do not allow on their own sites.

The subject at hand is the government decreeing what is allowed on ANY site.

NOT same-same.

[lastchance]

You will get no argument from me.

[dangus]

Several key issues:

• Free Republic is not a place of "public accomodation," unlike Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
• There is no "trade" to be in "restraint" of.
• None of us have an economic objective to be here.
• FR unapologetically furthers a particular political viewpoint; Jim Rob makes no claim of impartiality, or that the views expressed do not necessarily represent his own. In contrast, Social Media has received legislation protecting it from libel or lawsuits on the grounds that the opinions expressed within are not their own.
• Whatever censorship takes place is not to curry regulatory favor, so it's not the sort of illegally censorship explicitly forbidden by the first amendment.